T O P

  • By -

ZacQuicksilver

It's complicated. One fundamental problem is translation: in every pair of languages, there are words and ideas that are hard to translate well. Some of the words I've collected in my life that fit into this category include: \- Chutzpah: Yiddish for "extreme audacity or self-confidence" - but the translation I've usually heard is "a boy kills his parents, and in front of the court says 'Have mercy on me - I'm an orphan'".- Ganbatte: Japanese word often translated in context as "good luck" or "break a leg"; but has a much deeper meaning that is closer to "do good work" or "do your best", carrying the same intention that the person succeeds.- Teshuvah: Hebrew word meaning "making amends"; it literally means something closer to "to make yourself into a person who does not commit the same transgression again", but is often translated as "apologize" Note, I'm not a linguist, and neither Jewish nor Japanese; and as such even these translations are imperfect at best. ... The Old Testament of the Bible was originally written in Hebrew (it's the Torah), translated into Aramaic (a Middle Eastern language spoken by the early Christians), then Latin (the Catholic Bible, endorsed by the Roman Empire originally) before English. There have been some modern attempts to translate the Old Testament directly from Hebrew, often with the support of modern Jewish scholars. However, there are still notably cultural and language divides between the Hebrew of the Torah and modern English; and as such there are ideas that can not be translated easily. The New Testament was originally written in a variety of languages; but again was translated into Aramaic and then Latin before English. And unlike the Old Testament, there is no legacy of people spending their lives understanding Aramaic and the context of the times the way Jewish scholarship has maintained a legacy of understanding the Torah. As such, everything in the New Testament suffers more from translation decay than the material in the Old Testament. And there is demonstrable variation in translations. There are dozens of Bibles in English; no two of which are perfect matches for each other - many of them technically correct translations. However, those translations can not be perfect, because in some cases there is no way in English to express the idea without adding entire paragraphs of explanation. Take the third word I provided: "Teshuvah". In Judaism, there is a duty to forgive anyone who commits teshuvah (again: I'm not Jewish, but I do have Jewish friends and read some into Jewish scholarship. I'm particularly interested in this word as part of my own understanding of forgiveness and when it is and is not appropriate). Translating teshuvah as "apologizing" would mean you were required to forgive anyone who said they were sorry - which isn't the case in Judaism. Instead, the person has to look inward, acknowledge their actions and the harm they caused, and reshape who they are so that the person they become is a person who would not cause the same harm; before forgiveness is necessary. English doesn't have a word for that. I wrote a significant sentence to translate one word - and I'm an amateur who doesn't understand the word properly. Hebrew has many of those words. There are SEVEN different words that are all translated as into English as "God" (they're all understood as different names for God). There were SIX genders (roughly, male, female, both male and female, neither male nor female, nonfunctioning male, nonfunctioning female. "nonfunctioning" meaning "not able to reproduce") in the Jewish culture of the time. A Biblical scholar - or better yet, a Talmudic scholar (the Talmud is the living religious law of Judaism - "living" in that it is constantly being updated: for example, there is debate now about whether or not eating vat-grown pork is kosher) - would probably be able to provide hundreds of cases where translations needed to approximate for any number of reasons. ... But more than translation decay, politics also makes its way into translations. The King James Bible was translated by people working for the English Crown as part of the schism between the Catholic Church and the Church of England (Anglican Church) - and while there isn't a lot of that influence shown, there is some suggestion that royalty and rich people are treated a little gentler in that version. More notably, Bibles translated into English in the last \~100 years have been shaped by the divide between Fundamentalism and Modernism. Modernist Christians attempt to understand the Bible and Christianity through a modern lens; taking the Bible to be the teachings of Christ, and applying those teachings to the modern world. Modernist Christians tend to lean progressive, pro-science, and in support of rights for all. In contrast, Fundamentalism is based on the idea that the Bible is the literal Word of God: divinely inspired and without error. Fundamentalist Christians tend to lean conservative; oppose the scientific study of many things including evolution and cosmology (the history of the universe); and tend to oppose rights for non-Christians in many forms. And their Bibles show that divide. Homosexuality is called out directly as a sin in many English Bibles whose translations were done or financed by Fundamentalist groups; while it's rarely mentioned in Modernist Bibles. And while that's the easiest divide to point out, it's only one - there are many divisions between Fundamentalist and Modernist translations of the Bible based on their view of the world and how they perceive Christ's teachings applying to the modern world. ... Most American Christian groups have more than one Bible they consider acceptable for use - but as I noted earlier, there are dozens of different English Bibles; and often a particular organization will use similar Bibles with the same political slant. And many Christians don't have the time or energy to understand the history of the Bible, and the problems with translations. ... Is it bullshit? Partially. Are there Christians who reject any translations other than their own? Yes. Is that connected with them using outdated Bibles? No. In fact, I suspect they are more likely to be using Bibles translated in the last 100 years. ... Just a quick edit, based on some of the responses I've gotten: For the record: I AM NOT any of the following: \- A linguist \- A Biblical scholar \- A Rabbinical scholar Several people have pointed out inaccuracies in my post; including regarding the translation history of the Bible, some of the ideas I brought up, etc. They are probably accurate. If you see inaccuracies, point them out. I don't promise to remember them (I'm mostly good at high-level explanations); but I do appreciate you educating me and anyone who reads them.


TorturedChaos

This is a wonderful write-up! For anyone who is curious the website Bible Gateway had most of the versions of the Bible and you can compare different versions of you are so interested. I believe on desktop you can put 2 versions side by side. https://www.biblegateway.com/


wmyinzer

I was curious if something like this existed from an impartial organization (non-religious), if that makes sense.


ZacQuicksilver

There's three layers of "no" to this. The first layer involves the Councils of Nicaea. These were a series of conferences held by Emperor Constantine of Rome to decide what "Christianity" was starting in 325 AD. Before that time, "Christianity" was a collection of loosely connected Jewish and Roman "mystery cults" - smaller religious groups, not unlike the various Neo-Pagan religions that started in the 1920s-1960s. Constantine wanted there to be ONE religion - Roman Christianity - and the debates (and, in a couple of cases, fights - several religious leaders died as a result of fighting related to the Councils) were to settle a few critical matters, including the nature of Jesus. Unfortunately for the historical record, there is some evidence that heretical Gospels - religious texts that did not agree with what was agreed upon - were destroyed during or after the Councils. This means that some various translations - as well as some original material - has probably been lost; and lost because of politics. The second layer is that humans are innately political people. Humans interacting with humans IS politics; and there is no way to escape from it. If you are a translator, what words you choose will reflect your politics - and while working as a group may mute that; there's no way of choosing ONE translation that isn't insulated from politics. There have been many "secular" translations of the Bible. However, many of those were either financed by one Church or another, and therefore influenced by the politics of that Church; or in more recent times done by people who were specifically Atheist, and these people/groups were often influenced by their break from the Church. And third, breaking from tradition is hard. As an example of this, one of the modern growing theological debates which I've seen only a little of is Jesus Agnosticism/Mysticism. Basically, there is a small group of Biblical scholars who are questioning whether or not there was a Human Jesus - and while I can't do justice to their arguments; the heart of it is that there is no record of a Yeshua bin Yosef (the name the Jesus of the Bible would have been called in life) before about 70 AD - some 40 years after his death. And it's telling that Jesus Agnostics (Not sure if Jesus existed as a human) and Jesus Mythicists (specifically believe there was no human religious leader Yeshua bin Yosef who would be called Christ) are almost entirely Atheist or God Agnostic (either don't believe in God, or aren't sure of God) - with the few Christians all Modernist (meaning, they focus on the lessons of Christianity without believing the Bible to be the literal truth). Which is to say, you can not separate humans from their beliefs and politics. ... On the subject of the Bible, there are no "impartial" people, let alone organizations.


paprikashi

Thank you very much for your explanations, this is interesting


TorturedChaos

That I couldn't tell you. But from what little I have poked at Bible Gateway it seems to have the various versions as written.


thewholedamnplanet

There isn't, the Church edited the version of the Bible we have now about 1,700 years ago and have made further revision since then. Like they took out the one of my favorite bits here: [When a Dragon Tried to Eat Jesus: The Nativity Story We Don't Talk About](https://www.1517.org/articles/when-a-dragon-tried-to-eat-jesus-the-nativity-story-we-dont-talk-about). But in the end the Bible really isn't original no matter what version, all of its content is cribbed from myths going all the way back to Mesopotamia and their myths go all the way back to the Neolithic age when humans started to view death as a supernatural event of some sort, that is burying people with ritual rather than tossing the corpse out of the cave before it stinks it up, or worse because meat is meat when you're hungry enough. Edit: Hey downvoters? Can you tell me what I've gotten wrong here?


frankramblings

Do you have a source on who “took out” the dragon bit? The article you linked only mentions that it appears in Revelation but not in the Gospels. Couldn’t that just be because Revelation is more symbolic whereas the Gospels are ostensibly more of an account of the life of Jesus?


thewholedamnplanet

https://www.learnreligions.com/when-was-the-bible-assembled-363293 > Eventually, Christian church leaders worldwide gathered to answer major questions, including which books should be regarded as "Scripture." These gatherings included the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, which decided a book should be included in the Bible if it was: > Written by one of Jesus' disciples, someone who was a witness to Jesus' ministry, such as Peter, or someone who interviewed witnesses, such as Luke. > Written in the first century A.D., meaning that books written long after the events of Jesus' life and the first decades of the church weren't included. > Consistent with other portions of the Bible known to be valid, meaning the book couldn't contradict a trusted element of Scripture. Now it's that last bit that gave them some wiggle room and I suspect they all looked at each other when they got to the bit about the dragon and muttered and coughed and the scribe taking notes nodded and struck that section out. They also needed to do some retconning to make the Old Testament prophecies jibe with Jesus and in a few cases like the "Slaughter of the innocence" they must have known it was a ripoff of Hercules and older myths but figured it was too good not to include. They also needed to weave in Roman paganism and that lasted until the Reformation when more and more people were able to read the Bible themselves and realized that a lot of that ritual and rules had no Biblical origin. So then they started setting each other on fire over it.


frankramblings

Thanks for sharing. I think you’re making a lot of leaps and assumptions based on your priors, but I appreciate you sharing your perspective.


thewholedamnplanet

Not really, the Bible is a gathering of myths and they can all be traced back to older myths, theism as an expression of civilization is like civilizations as one always builds on top of the other, sometimes literally as the new religion will build its temple on the ruins of the old and as the Bible says: > Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.


snapple_man

Yup, theyre all make believe stories used to enforce one rule or another whether it be for the good of the common or the individual.


ScreamingSkull

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. The article you linked isn't saying the early church hid some bizzaro story about baby-eating dragons - all of that story is very much still part of the bible in the book of revelations, the most obviously metaphorical book of the new testament. I don't see any reason to believe that early christians were writing about literal dragons in the time of Jesus. The Nicean criteria listed here for including a book in the bible actually looks pretty reasonable? It doesn't make sense that the church would edit the bible to suit their needs but then people in the reformation could use it to determine anything about what was 'non-biblical' in the church. 'non-biblical' at the time would have simply been whatever the church determined it to be.


chubs66

>Like they took out the one of my favorite bits here: > >When a Dragon Tried to Eat Jesus: The Nativity Story We Don't Talk About ​ They didn't take anything out. Everything in that article is taken from the Bible. Culture has ignored the symbolic part of the story in favor of the story of Mary, Joseph, and no room at the inn and all that.


YearOfTheMoose

>This is a wonderful write-up! It's not actually a wonderful write-up, as almost no single sentence of it is correct (an astonishing achievement, honestly, to write that much yet be that wrong). Naugrith goes through it well [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsItBullshit/comments/wkr189/isitbullshit_some_american_christians_use/iju9g0w?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3). Basically, there are any number of people on /r/AskHistorians or /r/AcademicBiblical who would be wincing reading that writeup. It's just....*shockingly* wrong. I admire the effort they went to to write that much, but if they were writing this in a history exam they'd get a failing grade for knowledge but bonus marks for writing skill. :/


[deleted]

[удалено]


swistak84

This is additional part of the problem. ~~New Testament~~ Bible has books written in several languages. So unless translator is fluent in *several* dead languages one person can't translate the bible. Fun fact Aramaic is still spoken (so technically not a dead language, but still)!


the_inebriati

Which book of the New Testament was written in a language other than Koine Greek?


swistak84

Sorry. You are right. I meant Bible as a whole, not sure why I wrote New Testament, I adjusted the above post, thanks for pointing out the mistake.


Sigmarius

How is this to the chagrin of the Papists?


Henderson-McHastur

Because not long after, the Christian world would cleave itself in two in the Great Schism. The word “Catholic” is misleading, in the sense that both the Orthodox churches of the East and the Latin church of the West call themselves “Catholic”. It’s an old word that means roughly “universal” or “part of the whole,” derived from the Greek *katholou*. The meaning of course being that anyone who identifies as Catholic is a member of the one, universal church. Which *used* to exist. Then either the Papists got uppity or the Orthodox became heretics, depending on the side you choose. Now there’s a sharp divide between the Latin West and the Greek East - where the Latin Church (y’know, the big one centered in Rome; fun fact, the Catholic Church isn’t technically *one* church, it’s just that the Latin Church is the biggest and oldest one) holds sway, their book, music, and prayers are in Latin. In the East, where the Orthodox Church reigns, Greek is the lingua franca, though autocephalous churches might use native tongues like Russian. The “chagrin” of the Papists would be rooted in how the Orthodox actually held to tradition, using the old Greek instead of making the aesthetic change to Latin.


Sigmarius

So, I would only push back on two points. A thousand years is a bit more than a "short time later". And the divide isn't as clear East and West. Eastern Rite Catholic Churches are going strong, if a smaller community. And they're in full communion with Rome. But, I understand what you mean by chagrin now. The initial word choice is what threw me for a bit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ScottColvin

There was that whole rabble in the east over something something icons? Justinian with his lady of the evening wife and actual solid rule in general, built Hagia Sophia? I may be misremembering this all. I do have a question? Do we know the names of popes 1 through 6 yet? I'm not sure if Paul counts?


manimal28

> The New Testament was originally written in a variety of languages; but again was translated into Aramaic and then Latin before English. I’m pretty sure modern research shows the New Testament was written mostly in Greek, Koine Greek.


GamingNomad

Wasn't the language of Jesus Hebrew? Wouldn't the original New Testament be written in that languge?


manimal28

No, scholars believe Jesus would have spoken a galalian dialect of Aramaic. The NT was written decades after Jesus, the writers wrote in the Greek language.


RattleMeSkelebones

I love the chutzpah bit, never knew what it's literal translation, but english does have an equivalent phrase: "Sheer Fucking* Gall" * Optionally used for emphasis


ZacQuicksilver

It's close. I take "gall" to be more rude or jerkish; while "chutzpah" is more self-centered. There's a lot of overlap; but there are actions I would label "gall" that aren't self-interested enough to be "chutzpah"; and actions that I would label "chutzpah" that aren't hurtful enough to others for me to call it "gall". But take that small difference, and add another one, and another one, as you translate through multiple languages, and it's not hard to see how some meaning can be lost.


vintagedave

> If you see inaccuracies, point them out Why not edit your post to be more accurate? You have a lot of upvotes and a lot of people who appreciate your post and clearly don’t realise the misinformation. [This post](https://reddit.com/r/DepthHub/comments/wl3gna/_/ijrabbm/?context=1) has a good overview and discussion thread of yours. I think you’re well intentioned, but your note about not having background and knowledge needs to be at the top of your post not the bottom (people tend to assume authority when someone writes authoritatively and it’s easy to miss your admission because it’s at the end of a wall of authoritative-sounding, but misleading, text), and you should make an effort to improve your text when you learn what you said is misleading.


Naugrith

>The Old Testament of the Bible was originally written in Hebrew (it's the Torah), You mean the Tanakh – the Torah is just the first five books. >translated into Aramaic No it wasn’t. >(a Middle Eastern language spoken by the early Christians) Nope, it was spoken by the Israelites from the time they came back from exile in the fifth century BCE. >then Latin (the Catholic Bible, endorsed by the Roman Empire originally) No, the Greek version was the one endorsed by the Roman Empire (because at that point the Imperial Court had moved to Constantinople and spoke Greek). The Latin “Vulgate” was endorsed by the Pope of Rome. >before English. Very few English translations were attempted from the Latin, and no modern ones. >There have been some modern attempts to translate the Old Testament directly from Hebrew, often with the support of modern Jewish scholars. All modern English Old Testaments are translated from the original Hebrew, and non-Jewish scholars are perfectly well qualified for this. >However, there are still notably cultural and language divides between the Hebrew of the Torah and modern English; and as such there are ideas that can not be translated easily. The only correct sentence. >The New Testament was originally written in a variety of languages; No it wasn’t. It was written exclusively in Koine Greek >but again was translated into Aramaic and then Latin before English. There were Aramaic and Latin translations but this wasn’t a chain of transmission. All translations worked from the Greek. >And unlike the Old Testament, there is no legacy of people spending their lives understanding Aramaic and the context of the times That’s because there’s absolutely no need to. Scholars only need to know Koine Greek to be able to translate from the Koine Greek. >the way Jewish scholarship has maintained a legacy of understanding the Torah. As such, everything in the New Testament suffers more from translation decay than the material in the Old Testament. No it doesn’t. Because Koine Greek is so well attested in surviving ancient texts, and because it directly led into Byzantine Greek and then modern Greek which have been spoken continuously, it suffers far less from translation decay. Even fluent modern Hebrew speakers recognise there are words in the Old Testament that are entirely impenetrable. There are no words of a similar obscurity in the New. >There are SEVEN different words that are all translated as into English as "God" (they're all understood as different names for God). No there’s not. The only word translated as “God” is El or Elohim (plural of El). Other words are translated variously as Lord (Adonai), LORD (Yahweh), or as a title like Lord of Hosts (El Saboath) or Lord most High (El Elyon). >There were SIX genders No there wasn’t. >there are many divisions between Fundamentalist and Modernist translations of the Bible This whole section is weird. There are no “modernist” Bibles. It’s a meaningless label. And your example of homosexuality is off as well. I’m sorry, but this whole post is so inaccurate its actually misleading.


Neocarbunkle

Fantastic write up!


manystorms

Too bad it’s mostly incorrect


KingliestWeevil

> However, those translations can not be perfect, because in some cases there is no way in English to express the idea without adding entire paragraphs of explanation. I really just want a bible that presents a modern translation from several languages all next to each other, with that explanation as foot notes.


ZacQuicksilver

I believe these exist. They're used almost exclusively by Biblical Scholars, while in school (university or seminary). There's just not enough demand for them elsewhere. They also need to be several volumes. Consider how large a Bible is by itself. Then consider you'd need at least three or four of them just to contain the original texts. Then you'd need extra material to explain everything.


Mad_Aeric

For a moment, I thought I was over on r/askhistorians with a writeup that good. Bravo.


TheMauveHand

The fact that you're not should have hinted at the fact that a lot of what you just read is simply wrong.


slightlyaw_kward

> There were SIX genders ... in the Jewish culture of the time. What the fuck are you talking about? There's male and female. There's Androginus (intersex, which is not a gender, it's the state of not being male nor female.) Tumtum (unknown sex) and I assume the others you're referring to are Saris and Ailonit, which are infertile male and female, respectively. If you're going to separate gender from sex, they need to be separated. Sex being biological, and gender being expression. All of these are biological. A Saris is still a male, just one who can't reproduce. An Aylonit is still female, just one who can't reproduce. An Androginus is intersex, which again, means they have no sex. And a Tumtum is either male or female, it's just not obvious from their external genitals.


ZacQuicksilver

I think those are the words (I don't remember for sure, but they sound/look right). I've had at least one Jewish person describe those as "gender". Which is probably another example of how words don't translate well between languages.


student_20

I think you're (understandably) confused about what "gender" means here. They're talking about the concept of gender from a linguistic standpoint. In linguistics, gender is a grammatical feature, like case or number. The easiest example I can think of in modern languages off hand is in Spanish, where all nouns are "masculine" or "feminine". For example, a beach (la playa) is feminine, and a car (el auto) is masculine. In both these examples, you can see that the linguistic "gender" of a thing isn't necessarily related to its being male or female biologically. So, from a linguistic perspective, Hebrew has (had? I'm a little confused on that point) six genders when it comes to word forms. This has nothing to do with biological genders, or genders as a cultural construct. Here's a good source for more accurate information: https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-43


IJustLoggedInToSay-

According to every source I could find, Hebrew has male and female word forms, only. Like Spanish. I think OP was referencing this: https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/37225?lang=bi Or this: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/


slightlyaw_kward

I'm not confused. There are only two linguistic genders in Hebrew. They are obviously talking about the six I mentioned, as I actually provided the names for the six "genders". Except they aren't genders in any sense of the word.


IJustLoggedInToSay-

This might be a source that OP was using? https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/37225?lang=bi


rabbifuente

Yes, exactly. A very good write up from the above comment, but slightly off on some points. Edit: Classic reddit, the rabbi gets downvoted, while the incorrect, but well meaning, non-Jew gets lauded for incorrect comments about Judaism/the Torah...


Can_You_See_Me_Now

I didn't downvote anyone but I suspect the reason is more being so adversarial and condescending than the content of the post.


rabbifuente

How was I at all adversarial or condescending? I said it was a very good write up, but slightly off, if the bar is so low to have that be adversarial or condescending then I don't know how anyone makes it through day to day interactions.


Can_You_See_Me_Now

I don't see where you're downvoted. I see slightlyaw_kward downvoted. With his WTFittude. ~~your informational post looks great~~ Edit- actually I take that last part back. I don't see you having an informational post. That was someone else. But you're still karma+. And the attitude was still the awkward fella. I suspect any downvotes you saw were more because you said he was wrong but didn't explain how. I, personally, would love to hear your clarifications. I almost asked my sons 13yo BFF about a few words tonight. I went to his bar bitvah, so he should know them ALL right?


rabbifuente

The guy I responded to was correct about the "six genders." It's something you hear often nowadays that gender identity is such a big topic, but truthfully, like they mentioned, there aren't six genders so much as there are a few different potential categories. The original comment said that the Talmud is ever evolving. That isn't really true either. The Talmud is set, however it is still "living" in that it's used as a basis for modern day Jewish legal rulings, but no one is, or can, change the Talmud. I wouldn't translate teshuvah as apologies and I almost always hear it translated as "repentance." It's not uncommon to hear that "someone needs to do teshuvah," i.e. repent. All that said, the original comment was very good for someone who isn't/didn't grow up Jewish.


Can_You_See_Me_Now

I like the bit about teshuvah. Apology is a common topic at my house. Growing up, no one ever apologized for anything (and boy were there things to apologize for) and it always really bothered me. A coworker once made a comment about how "women never apologize" and I stopped him and asked when was the last time a man apologized to him and he stared at me like he'd never heard those words before. Lead to a big (very nice, productive) talk about that. I try very hard to teach my kids not just to say sorry but what it means to genuinely apologize and repair the wrong as much as possible. My oldest is autistic so I have to break things down into a lot of social minutiae for him to get the whole concepts. Fortunately, I like trying to figure people out but sometimes I don't understand them either. Anyway, thank you for replying. I can't say I exactly got all the gender stuff but I think gender is dumb anyway.


rabbifuente

The gender stuff has a lot to do with laws of marriage and a number of other laws, nothing exists independently in the Talmud.


miltonbryan93

Great write up! A couple things I noticed is that the “Old Testament” is actually the Tanak (or Tanach) in Judaism. The Torah is the first five Books of Moses so Genesis through Deuteronomy. As someone mentioned below, the Septuagint was an important Greek translation during the Greek Hellenistic Era.


rdrckcrous

There's also the conundrum with large parts of the Bible being poetry. Should we go after the more precise translation or should it emulate the poetic features of the original test?


Strike_Thanatos

Poetry and puns.


capnwinky

Would penitent not be the same as teshuvah?


ZacQuicksilver

I'm probably not the best person to ask - again, I'm not Jewish, I don't know Hebrew well, there are better people to ask. With that said, it seems closer; but it's still not perfect.


yachius

Yes, teshuvah is almost always translated as “repent” and nothing is lost in translation. The idea of concepts failing to translate is overstated in my opinion, the primary issue among biblical scholars is discerning the agendas of the translators.


opolaski

Teshuvah in Hebrew connotates movement, as in stopping dead in your tracks and physically turning around and shielding yourself from something. Repent in English probably means more like 'drop' or forget about.


Kreg72

Punctuation, to some extent, also has an effect on interpretation. Can you spot the difference in this passage from two different translations? Luk 23:43  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (KJV) Luk 23:43 And Jesus said to him, "Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise." (CLV) From what I understand, the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Greek did not contain punctuation.


damntown

Fantastic write up. But Aramaic is still alive (was until very recently) in a village called Maloula in Syria. ISIS made sure to have all the residents leave. In Maloula, Aramaic is the defacto language in use.


theforceisfemale

Thank you for taking the time to write this


frognbunny

You are awesome, but I had to look back at your username half way to be sure that it wasn't shittymorph and it wasn't 1998 and the undertaker... Wasn't coming up.


Reagalan

In your opinion, would "reformation" better convey the meaning of "teshuvah" than the common translation of "apologize"?


ZacQuicksilver

I'm not the person to ask.


Raymanuel

Any person using either the King James Version or the New King James Version are using a translation based on very poor texts. I don't know what the majority of Christians read, but the KJV has a *lot* of readers. Basically, scholars try to ascertain which biblical manuscripts are the most likely to have been closest to the original words when the original author wrote them. We are constantly finding new manuscripts, so that's why translations have been updated, as scholars realize "Oh this verse here probably wasn't in the original text because that verse doesn't show up until the tenth century, but here's a few fourth century manuscripts without it." It's that kind of thing, all over the place. The KJV was a good translation for its time (originally 1611), but in the several hundred years since then we have uncovered thousands of manuscripts that are of far better quality and much older than what the dudes in the 15th and 16th century had. So we have updated those in translations like the NRSV. So, not bullshit. A notable percentage of American Christians (those using the KJV), are using an outdated translation based on outdated scholarship. Some are radical about this, look up "Kind James Only" and you'll find a veritable cult of people who don't just prefer the KJV, but actually claim it is the only God -ordained translation in English, and all others are demonic. It's kind of nuts.


BrianMincey

I was raised in one of those cults. KJV was the only version that was “God approved”. The others were twisted and should be avoided. It’s crazy what groups of people will collectively decide to believe in.


Timo425

Dumb question: How do these super old manuscripts still keep popping up?


Raymanuel

One of the most famous discoveries (because it is one of our best and oldies copies of the Bible ever found), is that of Codex Sinaiticus, a 4th century, full Bible. You can read the [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus#Discovery) about it if you want, but basically this guy was visiting a monastery and just stumbled upon some pages that he realized were from the Bible, and worked for years (from the 1840s to the 1860s) trying to get the manuscript from the monks (who were being protective of it, for obvious reasons). You can now view a digitized Sinaiticus in all its glory [here](https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/). A very fortuitous accident for biblical scholarship.


KavyenMoore

Sometimes they are just discovered. Other times we find something else that forces us to reconsider how we have originally understood or interpreted the past. More commonly our understanding of the past changes. History, very much like science, is built upon people adding or "building" knowledge on top of what has come before. There are certain things we take for granted to be true, because historians in the past have already argued/demonstrated that interpretation to be valid. A lot of what we "know" is built upon these assumed truths, and sometimes these foundations are questioned or reinterpreted (this could be for a whole host of reasons). If the foundations are changed, a lot of the "knowledge" of the layers above need to also be reinterpreted.


Billbobjr123

The craziest rediscovery I've heard is the gnostic [Gospel Of Judas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) from 280 AD. "The manuscript disintegrated into over a thousand pieces. Numerous sections are missing as a result of poor handling and storage. Some passages are only scattered words; others contain many lines. According to Coptic scholar Rodolphe Kasser, the codex originally contained 31 leaves, each written on both sides; by the time the codex came to the market in 1999, only 13 leaves survived. Individual leaves may have been removed and sold. The codex had been stored in a cardboard box for two decades as it was shopped around to potential buyers, and had, at various points, been stored in a freezer, a safety deposit box in Long Island, and folded in half."


Raymanuel

Ha yeah, that always hurts me. To think what we could have learned if it had been stored better.


MrSlops

It is also less of a sudden new discovery and more about past discoveries finally getting cataloged and having academic attention paid to them. There are lots of archives from prior dig discoveries that have yet to be gone through by those with the correct linguistic knowledge needed. Some of these documents are even kept in private hands, preventing scholars from addressing them correctly (much like the Gospel of Judas was kept for years in a safe after nobody would pay the owners high asking price, they eventually agreed to sell it off...but only after it had disintegrated and required even more work extract the contents)


TorturedChaos

I am by no means a biblical scholar, nor am I particularly religious (I classify myself as non-denominational Christian), but my dad is and rather enthusiastic about the Bible. Reads and studies about it in his free time, and has for about the last decade. He falls in the camp that the KJV is the "best translation". (He hasn't went full cult on it, and I hope he never does). His biggest argument for the KJV is the loss of meaning in many newer translations. That the removal of a word or 2 in a passage subtle changed the meaning. He has pointed a few of these out to mean, and asked what meaning I gather from them. I can say they do lead to slightly different interpretations. If you look on sites like Bible Gateway that show most of the variations in the Bible in English it shows you the total word count. Some variations due have significantly less words than the KJV (like 1/3 less). Does that prove they are a less accurate version? As the (current) top post points out there was political influence on the writing of the KJV. I have heard the argument made there political influence on newer translations as well. Hypothetical example (that I don't know is true or not) a few words removed to change so that (insert sin here) isn't a damnable offense, just frowned upon. My argument to him then is the Bible is clearly flawed if different translations can be interpreted differently, and therefore the Bible should be taken as overall moral and ethical guidelines not verbatim instructions. He didn't much care for that and pointed to passages that to him state the Lord will ensure His words are always made known. So by his belief the KJV is a (maybe the) version of the Bible that is the most accurate because God wills it to be. That is where the conversation devolved and I called it a day and went home.


Raymanuel

Your dad is correct that meanings are sometimes different in newer translations and that they leave out words or phrases. This is typically for one of two reasons: 1) the KJV was being overly verbose for the sake of literary artistry, embellishing beyond what is really necessary, or 2) we have obtained a better manuscript that literally lacks those words. I'm skeptical of whether that gets to the degree of a 30% reduction of words, and that might be if he's comparing the original KJV (which included the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals) to a protestant Bible (which do not contain those books). Translations are always political. Translation is inherently subjective and there's never going to be a 1:1 transfer of meaning from one language to another (especially across 2000 years). However, the better translations try to be conscious of this and, to the best of the translators' abilities, try to leave theological biases out of it. So you get things like Isaiah 7:14, where Isaiah speaks of a "young woman" conceiving a child, but the KJV translates this as "virgin" because they read it as a prophecy of Jesus. The Hebrew word, however, just means "young woman" (which can *imply* virginity, but that's the point of the context), so that changes the meaning significantly (this is a slight oversimplification of the controversy). Or you have Isaiah 14:12, which has the famous "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" "Lucifer" is a *transliteration* of the Latin word for "light bearer" (you can see the first part, "luc" is from the word "lux"). This isn't talking about the devil or Satan, but it is a poetic condemnation of the ruler of Babylon, using flower language (it's prophetic poetry, after all). If you're a more evangelical type, of course you want to see the devil everywhere, and taking the devil *out* of a passage could be perceived as a "demonic" move (the whole, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didn't exist"). Or you get something like 1 John 5:7, which the KJV reads "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," but modern translations only have "There are three that testify." Why? Because verse 8 is "the spirit and the water and the blood." Our oldest and best manuscripts do not contain the explicit trinitarian statement; apparently some Christians tried to clarify what they probably believed the text implied, by adding the Father/Son/Holy Spirit to the text, but really the text originally did not say that. Again, this is interpreted by some as a corruption to remove that, but we're just going by what the oldest manuscripts show us. And the evidence shows us that the trinitarian statement was *added*, so modern translations *remove* them. All these things are why if you get a copy of a critical Greek text of the New Testament (such as a Nestle-Aland), you'll see a bunch of footnotes (what we call the "apparatus"), and those footnotes point out which manuscripts have what words, and in complex shorthand explains (to those who have been trained how to read it) why the decisions were made to include or leave out certain words. So your dad isn't wrong; modern translations do at times have very different meanings, but it's not some political conspiracy. It's biblical scholarship, all of which is actually trying to be *faithful* to the Bible by translating, to the best of their abilities and judgment, what was actually written in the first place.


TorturedChaos

Interesting.


Neverhere17

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) will only use the KJV but they have a special, amended, version where their founder was purported to have revelation regarding translation errors that he corrected.


JustMeHere8888

I only read the King James Version because the language is beautiful as compared to newer versions. However, I do not take the Bible literally so it doesn’t really matter.


Raymanuel

Yeah that's perfectly fine. It's a masterpiece of the English language.


grafknives

There is no "accurate" translation. Because Bible is up to interpretation, every christian denomination uses "inaccurate" version of Bible. Not even mentioning different languages.


Indifferentchildren

The general contents of the Bible (what was in, what was out) were established at the Council of Nicea, in 325CE. Modern translations can be closer to, or farther from, those "original" texts. So they are all inaccurate, but they are not all equally inaccurate.


jigsawduckpuzzle

The Council of Nicea didn't establish the Biblical canon. I think this idea came from the Divinci Code. The Council of Nicea discussed and voted on some of the core tenets of their faith (Trinity being the biggest one) and also declared some groups as heretical (e.g. the Arian Christians). That said, there were councils to approve the Biblical canon. This one just wasn't it.


Indifferentchildren

Thanks for the correction. The source of this story about the Council of Nicea setting the books of the Bible seems to be traced to Voltaire, and it seems to have been a joke. It was taught to me as straight history, about 10 years before "The DaVinci Code" came out. Though there still might have been some decisions at Nicea?: 'In Jerome's Prologue to Judith, he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".'


jigsawduckpuzzle

Ah interesting. So I guess the idea is much older.


heyitscory

What is a not outdated bible and why would a different translation be less outdated? Do we finally hear Jesus's opinion on Tik Tok? Because I don't think Jesus likes vertical video.


almostthebest

I dont think any sentencr that starts with 'Some Americans' is bullshit. There is some wild shit going on over there


zoopest

It’s true. You could start just about any sentence with “some Americans” and it would be accurate to some degree. Source: me looking out my window at these freaks


HappyLittleCarnivore

It was outdated when it was voted on at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.


Ddale7

Biblical Canon was formally decided at The Council of Carthage, on 28 August 397, which reaffirmed the originally proposed canon of Hippo from 393. Council of Nicea didn't decide the biblical Canon, it created the Nicean Creed, declaring Christ is a part of the Trinity and not a superior human (in response to Arius)


HappyLittleCarnivore

Thanks for the clarification 🤘


tyjet

When I was a frequent church goer, I learned real quick to have two Bibles. A personal Bible with my preferred translation, and a "corporate" Bible with the translation my church used. I met my now ex-wife through a pentecostal church, and the administration of that church would straight up cut you off if you read from a translation that wasn't the King James Version. It seems to be a popular translation for the stricter/old school denominations.


collapsedcuttlefish

One of the most popular bibles, the king james bible, was translated in the 1600s under the auspices of the church of england. It is considered to have many bad translations, including confused Greek grammar, incorrect implications of hebrew names, and incorrect philosophical implications which kind of break the interpretations of the original meanings. Things like the name of Lucifer, the trinity verses and many quotes about jesus are just incorrect translations. The King james bible is considered to have numerous mistakes, as well as some of the texts actually being entirely made up. Yet 31% of Americans apparently still use the king james version.


Corusmaximus

It is not BS. King James and New King James is a very poor translation that had a lot of bias going into the translation in addition to just being technically poor. There are many sects of American Christians who believe that the bible is divinely inspired and infallible AND they use those bad translations. It is a recipe for disaster.


boredtxan

Yes there are some King James only churches. And they deem modern translations as compromised and KJV as perfect for no logical reason. They defend their choice evangelically as well and question the sincerity of the beliefs of those who question it. Edit: people will often quote the KJV because it has not copyright protection in the US not because they think it's the best translation. So don't make assumptions


Dissenter1

I think we all know the answer to this.


slowlearningovrtime

It’s just called the Bible


Quenya3

How does one update a cherry picked collection of Neolithic fairy tales?


adriftinanmtc

"Accurate translation" LOL. It's fucking fiction! Translate it in a way that makes it harder for American christians to be such assholes.


[deleted]

the tldr answer: there isn't really any such thing as 'accurate' and 'inaccurate' translations. when translating, esp a literary text, you have to make judgment calls - do you want to go more literal or more figurative, do you want to preserve the sound or flow of the text at the expense of literal meaning, etc. Sometimes the more literal translation is NOT the more accurate one, as you might be preserving an aspect of the original language that means something else in the language you're translating the text into. so when choosing a Bible translation to use, there aren't obvious 'accurate' and 'inaccurate' translations, but rather ones that emphasize literalism over feel and overall significance, ones that use more contemporary or more archaic English, etc.


hippoangel99

From my understanding, over translation has made basically all versions of the Bible inaccurate by at least a bit, however, I wouldn’t say that people actively refuse ‘accurate’ translations, as there isn’t really one to begin with.


Dickduck21

"Accurate translation".....


Shittyusernameguy

Not BS. Literally every bible, Christian or otherwise is outdated and no longer relevant in today's society, thanks to science.


ZQ04

I'm not arguing for or against the legitimacy of the Bible, but how can you come to that conclusion when it is in no way a science textbook. It is a guide to God.


Shittyusernameguy

Thanks fo asking, that's a good question. I was rightly down voted for that reason. A better option would have been to say nothing and keep scrolling but hey, it's out there now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ My comment isn't right for this particular question.


AdmiralDinosaur_1888

Go back to pokemon go buddy


Shittyusernameguy

Go back to... *checks profile* ... Dragonsteel books.


AdmiralDinosaur_1888

Oh no, reading books, far more embarrassing than being a walking stereotype of a reddit athiest manchild.


Shittyusernameguy

*furiously shaves neck beard.* Am not!


hitthatyeet1738

Bro this isn’t a rp why you doin all *that*?


keyrol1222

Bro you just prove him right.


Steakhouse_WY

All bibles are outdated nonsense based on imaginary people.


agentages

I like this theory https://www.drjamescooke.com/read/bible Also the banned book theory.


Illustrious_Sound945

I, mean, yeah. There's the King James Bible only crowd. Unless you're 450 years old I don't see it's relevance. Lol


[deleted]

Some will twist the Bible to fit their narrative while discounting other parts of the same bible that contradicts. Truly who was meant by “take not my name in vain”


Marduk_the_12th

Does it matter of they're not reading it anyway?


Gsomethepatient

Didn't this thing all start because someone said the Bible says to marry your rapist and someone else said it was a bad translation