Bible Translation Errors

[Sona]

If there have been so many translation errors, how do christians even know they are worshiping correctly?
What they accept has the true writings could be a translation error, correct?

[Dean Anderson]

I agree with you - sort of.

I think 'translation errors' is the wrong term.

It is not usually a case of looking at a Greek or Hebrew word/phrase and accidentaly mistranslating it into an erroneous English (or whatever language your Bible is in) word/phrase.

The differences between Bible versions are usually because there is no direct one-to-one translation from the original language to English. Therefore translators have to guess (using the context) what the original phrase was intended to mean.

Unfortunately, people translating the Bible are rarely objective. Most of them are Christians of one form or another, so they will tend to tranlate into the English word/phrase that best fits their a-priori theology regardless of whether that is what fit the theology of the person who originally wrote the document being translated.

As an example (and one of the BC&H scholars may need to correct me, here) consider the Hebrew word 'lhym (sorry, I haven't mastered Unicode enough to post the Hebrew characters properly). This word is usually transliterated as Elohim.

This word is the plural of El ('Lord') and in an objective tranlsation of a piece of non-biblical Hebrew text would get translated into either 'Lords' or possibly 'Gods'.

In the bible, this is sometimes the case - In Exodus 12:12, the word is translated as 'gods' when referring to the gods of Egypt (which Yahweh smites).

(Side Note - often this verse is interpreted by Christians to mean that God destroyed the statues/idols of imaginary gods that the Egyptians worshipped, but again this is more wishful thinking based on a retroactive fitting of monotheism than accurate translation. The OT uses different terminology when referring to idols and statues. The terminology used here is explicitly the same as that used for the creators of the world. Yahweh is jealous and demands that he is the only god worthy of worship, but the Old Testament is polytheistic and admits the existence of the gods of the Egyptions and the Assyians and the Babylonians. Christians simply interpret the command to worship no other god but Yahweh as a statement that there is no other god but Yahweh)

However, in Genesis 1 to 2, the same word is translated as the singular 'God' because of the monotheistic prejudices of the translator. Of course, we can't know exactly whether the original writer(s) meant 'God' or 'gods', but the Genesis 1 and 2 stories are reworkings of the Sumerian myths that contain multiple gods.

Similarly, in Genesis 1, the usual translations imply that God created the world ex-nihilo whereas the Hebrew word used would normally indicate 'fashioning' or 'organising' or 'constructing', all of which would imply that the raw materials making up the world were already in place and were simply organised by the God or gods that Elohim refers to - which would again agree with the original Sumerian myths that the story was taken from - but which would be unacceptable to someone who was promoting a religion based around a single omniscient creator.

Obviously, this sort of translatorial gymnastics occurs throughout the Bible - making the current versions use a vastly different theology and cosmology to the ones that the original writings had.

So it is not tranlstional error, so much as translational fraud.

[CJD]

Let's speak specifically, shall we? Which texts with reference to worshipping did you have in mind? Are the various translations in question so very different that the intent cannot be grasped?

Regards,

CJD

[Sona]

I brought this up, because the only responce I have gotten from Christians about inconsistencies in the bible, is that its a translation error.

So what about everything else? How do you judge the validity of any passage?

[ozone cowboy]

Originally posted by Sona
I brought this up, because the only responce I have gotten from Christians about inconsistencies in the bible, is that its a translation error.

So what about everything else? How do you judge the validity of any passage?

The Hebrew language is a pictoral language that is very difficult to translate into another language. One does their best to convey the meaning of the words but sometimes it still is doesn't convey the corret meaning very well. Tell a joke to a foreiner and he doesn't laugh because he doesn't understand the idioms used.

As for the veracity of the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls pretty well confirm it. For the thousands of years of copying and different translations it has held up. Try reading Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowel.

[Down]

Judging by this refernce
http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/dssfacts.html
It's too early to speak about the veracity of the Bible by the Dead Sea Scrolls, IMHO.

[CJD]

Sona wrote:
I brought this up, because the only responce I have gotten from Christians about inconsistencies in the bible, is that its a translation error.

Well, did you have certain inconsistencies in mind that do find their root in translation difficulties? Or did you have certain theological inconsistencies in mind? Maybe you were thinking of certain historical inconsistencies?

How do you judge the validity of any passage?

I suppose you mean how I judge the intent or meaning of a passage? The answer to that (and you should know I'm packing a pretty useless degree in this stuff) is very cautiously and (hopefully) thoughtfully.

I, unlike most others here, tend to look at the Scriptures as a compilation of written and revised books, brilliantly edited together to form a complete whole. The default position, by the way, should be to take the compiled editing (redactions) seriously (by seeing how they fit into the whole), not assuming that all the books were slapped together willy-nilly by some seemingly illiterate editor(s) who couldn't see a glaring contradiction if it slapped them in the face! (forgive the cliche) [so spin, it would appear].

In other words, I judge passages according to a socio-grammatico-historical hermeneutic (with only a pinch perhaps of higher-criticism).

To bring it down even one more notch: I judge passages through a grid (just like we all do). Mine is the dynamic tradition of the Church universal.

Regards,

CJD

[ozone cowboy]

Originally posted by Down
Judging by this refernce
http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/dssfacts.html
It's too early to speak about the veracity of the Bible by the Dead Sea Scrolls, IMHO.

As I have only read comparisons of the Isaiah 53 text which was 95% word for word with the other 5% being minor sylistic changes and variations in spelling being compared with the Massoretic text written close to 1000yrs. later IMO that is quite a feat in itself. How many copies of the Bible have been written that don't agree with each other? I'm not talking about letter for letter but contextual changes. Surely there would have been several but there isn't. At least none that I have ever heard of, but then my research has been some what limited. Perhaps you know of one?

[Doctor X]

Pervy the Worrier of Hobbits:

Excellent post--one nitpick:

This word is the plural of El ('Lord')

"Lord" is used for YHWH whereas "God" is used for El. El was a primary Canaanite and Hebrew deity. Both terms cover situations where the deities have their name attached to other things such as "heavenly hosts," "mountain," "questionable credit rating." [Stop that!--Ed.]

I agree that in many cases Elohim should be plural. However, by context it appears that P and probably E use it as a singular primarily. Did they preserve a "plurality" which they made a "singular." Probably. Why P uses Elohim over, say, El in opposition to the J's YHWH keeps graduate students warm at night.

OzoneCowboy:

As for the veracity of the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls pretty well confirm it.

Actually no. First you have to define "veracity." If you mean that one god or gods, Elohim, cut appart the heavens from the earth whilst a cosmic sea existed prior to that time, or that a king sacrificed his son to another god on his battlements, and his god squishes the Israelites . . . well . . . you will have a problem.

If you mean the texts we have preserve the "original" texts you have another problem. We do not have the J or E documents that the Redactor used with the P document to form the Pentateuch, for example. In some cases, the relatively late Massoretic Text [MT--Ed.] preserves a good reading whilst the Greek Septuagint [LXX--Ed.]--of which "one" text does not exist!--preserves an even better reading.

Try reading Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowel.

I am afraid I prefer to obtain my humor from Mark Twain (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/index.shtml).

A more scholarly introduction to these matters is Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/thesecularweb/). Use the link and you can get Mack's book with it at a bargain. For textual criticism of the OT, I would recommend both Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint After Qumran (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0800610873/thesecularweb/) and Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0800604717/thesecularweb/). A standard and highly applauded work in the field is Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0800634292/thesecularweb/), but I have not read it yet.

--J.D.

[mike_decock]

Originally posted by ozone cowboy
Try reading Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowel.

Try reading The Jury is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/index.shtml), a step by step critique of that book.

-Mike...

[Doctor X]

Fine . . . ruin my subtle wit. . . .

--J. "Oh the Angst!" D.

[Down]

ozone cowboy, what you are speaking about is preciseness of the Bible copies. It’s very well that those who rewrote the Bible scrolls were very attentive and precise but does it have anything to do with the Bible veracity? INHO, it does not.

What about Enoch Book? It is there among Dead Sea Scrolls, but it is not included into the Bible. What does the book verify?

As far as I know there are not too noticeable textual diversities in different copies of OT. As for NT, there are contradictions even about Jesus biography in different Gospels.

[DiogenesofSinoppe]

In the beginning there was the word....

No, er..uh, in the beginning there was the Logos, which is the only blatant translation error that I know anything about.

Logos means, among many other things, rational discourse. John is suggesting that rational discourse is divine in a rather irrational document.

(think about it, a man dies on a cross and is raised from the dead three days later. How irrational can you get?)

[Doctor X]

Somewhere I wrote my "favorite" in a similar discussion. Let us see . . . does "Search" work?

Crap!

Okay . . . the problem comes from "born again" which is taken from Jn with reference to Nicodemus. A good Jew comes by and asks about Junior's teachings, and Junior responds with a bizarre, "Truly, truly I tell you unless you are born anothen. . . ."

I am too lazy to work out the Greek font--half the time I cannot see it. Anyways, then places ano--"above"--in the ablative which means "from above." In every other incidence in the literature that I have found--other than Jn!--this is understood as "from above." Junior, in Jn, makes a distinction between himself as being ek ano--"from above"--and the Pharisees and Scribes Oh My as being ek Kato--"from below."

The distinction is that unless one is already from above they are not saved. Nicodemus' response plays on this pun--he is more concerned with the process of rebirth and does not understand the implication--by nature, he cannot change status.

The politics is obvious--those Junior/Jn agree wiith are "born from above" and those who disagree/are opposed to them are "born from below" despite the fact they drive the chariots with the fancy CD changers.

--J.D.

[Mathetes]

Doctor X,

just curious... Do you know why this mistraslation is so widespread? I have just checked a number of online Bibles in several languages, and they all have "born again".

Could it be because the mistake also appears in the venerable Vulgate?

Non mireris quia dixi tibi oportet vos nasci denuo.

"Denuo" meaning "anew, again, a second time, afresh".

[CJD]

Just a nit, before this goes any further:

While the good Doctor is of course correct, most commentaries from every side of the spectrum point this out. Besides, the point is the same: One can no more be born again (by crawling back inside his/her mother's womb) than one can be born from above. Redemption, per the gospel of John, comes by the sheer, unmitigated grace of God.

At any rate, since Doc X would be the first to admit that his search among other literary works is not exhaustive, the possibility that anothen can be translated both ways must stand. Assuming that there was a final writer/editor of this piece, we can safely conclude that since the author did not record Jesus correcting Nicodemus (since, after all, he understood Jesus' use of anothen to be "again"; cf. "a second time," in v. 4) that a double meaning might be in view here. In other words, he certainly didn't mean anything less than "from above." See verse 5.

Regards,

CJD

[Doctor X]

I frankly think the mistranslation is more theologically acceptable. After that, it becomes "tradition" and traditional readings are hard to discard.

The gospel writers had an agenda. This was no longer the agenda by the time of, say, the Vulgate. Mk-Mt-Lk also preach gospels of "exclusion"--though Mt and Lk somewhat "soften" Mk in this respect. Mk's Junior refuses to let some learn, repent, and be saved. The idea is that the audience who accepts the dog and pony show will "make it" and those who do not will not--despite appearances.

Methinks that exclusion is part of the reason for the attacks against the disciples. I do not know if they represent attacks against actual people--remnants of the Jerusalem group--or what was left of the traditions.

With deference to the translators, the pun is rather complex. Jn seems to love complex meanings that his audience will figure out, and his various characters do or do not depending on their status--the disciples completely misunderstand Junior's plan for Lazarus, for example . . . among other things. Nicodemus fixates on the process of being reborn--finding his mother, reentering her womb, et cetera--rather than the deeper distinction--he cannot be "born from above." It is not just a matter of "rebirth"--however you want to conceive it. Nicodemus walks away confused thinkiing his problem is he cannot find a large enough speculum [Stop that.--Ed.]. He does not realize that, by nature, he cannot be saved.

This is very severe for anyone wanting to preach a message of inclusion. In a way, Jn's predestination parallels the Calvinistic idea--with the "saved" obviously following the correct path because of their nature . . . and obviously all of the members of the "flock" are in this group. In Jn, the "saved"--for want of a better term--discover their status through Junior.

Of course, you cannot discuss NT theology without tripping over the Historical Junior Debate! Does this mean that if a historical Junior existed he preached a message of exclusion? Er . . . I do not know. I suspect that Mk and Jn both "turned up the volume." Mk's basis for exclusion is different from Jn's. Exclusion is common for cults--"we versus they"--with rivals about.

However, that does not mean that a historical Junior did not preach exclusion--probably would have to whenever someone did not "join" the group.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

At any rate, since Doc X would be the first to admit that his search among other literary works is not exhaustive, the possibility that anothen can be translated both ways must stand.

Absence of evidence does not imply hidden evidence. The translation of anothen as "again" does not exist in the extant literature. Perhaps a lucky person with a shovel will find something. However, the fact remains that anothen is the ablative of ano--"above" and not "again."

. . . that since the author did not record Jesus correcting Nicodemus (since, after all, he understood Jesus' use of anothen to be "again"; cf. "a second time," . . .

Again it is a complex pun. To be "born from above" implies a second birth process. Nicodemus fixates on the literal problem of rebirth with is, as typical in Jn, a ridiculously literal interpretation. Jn "set up" opponents to "miss" the "deeper" and therefore correct interpretations. The irony is that Nicodemus misses the real problem--it is not that he cannot undergo birth again, it is that he was not born from above--predetermined to be part of the elect 'n all of that.

The message from Jn is that there is nothing he and others ek kato can do to change their nature. This may seem unfair to modern universal sensibilities, but such is a message of exclusion.

Conceiving it as "again"--aside from being grammatically incorrect, is not supported in the extant literature--attempts to "soften" the message to allow a "spiritual" or whathaveyou rebirth. This is a contradition of Jn's message.

--J.D.

[judge]

Originally posted by Sona
If there have been so many translation errors, how do christians even know they are worshiping correctly?



Yikes!!!:eek: :eek:

Do we really need the bible to worship God??

[Doctor X]

Many do. Many require "objective" support for subjective belief.

--J.D.

[Sona]

Originally posted by judge
Yikes!!!:eek: :eek:

Do we really need the bible to worship God??
how else would you know what todo with your first born son?

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Exodus+22:29

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Mathetes
Doctor X,

just curious... Do you know why this mistraslation is so widespread? I have just checked a number of online Bibles in several languages, and they all have "born again".

Could it be because the mistake also appears in the venerable Vulgate?

"Denuo" meaning "anew, again, a second time, afresh".
Interesting...but I'd say it's probably because they're relying on the tradition established by the KJV, which does translate it "again".

The New American Bible, for example, the current English bible for American Catholics, does indeed translate it "above":

Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above."

And it looks like there are others...so there's a healthy mix out there.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Sona
I brought this up, because the only responce I have gotten from Christians about inconsistencies in the bible, is that its a translation error.

So what about everything else? How do you judge the validity of any passage?
But as for this, maybe you need to talk to different Christians! This answer is not the only response to inconsistencies, in my experience.

Of course, most ministers and priests can read Biblical Greek, so that could be another answer to your particular question...

[Doctor X]

The New American Bible, for example, the current English bible for American Catholics, does indeed translate it "above"

Thank you Cave, I did not know that. I will have to add that to my evidence.

I must confess I enjoy the irony of a "born again" Christian suffering under a mistranslation.

--J.D.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Thank you Cave, I did not know that. I will have to add that to my evidence.
I'm not sure what your "evidence" refers to, but no problem. I should point out that the current translation is a revision, c. 1985--the first edition (c. 1970) could have been different, I suppose.

The NAB is made from a "modern" greek text--I think...this is a change from previous Catholic translations, which were made from the Vulgate.

[Mathetes]

Originally posted by the_cave
Interesting...but I'd say it's probably because they're relying on the tradition established by the KJV, which does translate it "again".

As I said, Bibles in other languages also contain the error (also Catholic ones), so I was speculating that the tradition should be older that the King James.

[CJD]

Doc X, I mostly agree with you (re: the theology of the passage). My only point is let's not be so quick to strip the complexity of a double meaning from John, who, as we already know, uses this device often.

Regards,

CJD

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Mathetes
As I said, Bibles in other languages also contain the error (also Catholic ones), so I was speculating that the tradition should be older that the King James.
Oh, I see...well, didn't the KJV use some older translations, I believe they were called the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible or something? Although the KJV used I think a text similar to what the Byzantines used, presumably the older English translations would have used the Vulgate, so yes, probably you're right!

[Dean Anderson]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Excellent post--one nitpick:
Thank you! I'm a rank amateur when it comes to this sort of stuff and I was very nervous about going into such detail in the BC&H forum where the more heavy-duty scholars (who's boots I am not fit to lick) can tell me to shut up because I'm talking tripe...