I have been talking with friends lately about the bible and it's translations troughout history ( from greek to hebrew to english). Is there anybody on here who has read the bible in hebrew or greek? If so did you find that you got a different feeling from the text than the English version.

I am just curious because often times things are lost in translation. For instance I know that in some cultures there are words that have very different meanings than the english translation of the word..

I'm curious to hear what you'll have to say.

I have mainly looked at the Hebrew text, and found that modern translations do a good job of rendering the text into English.
You might want to get a Hebrew/English lexicon or look at a Strong's concordance to explore this more............it really is fascinating. I am not into the Greek stuff but it appears easier to read.

Also, when you begin to actually "see" the text in it's original form, it can be a spiritual experience...seriously.

I don't know Greek or Hebrew but I think it is very important to go back to it and verify text. Every translation has issues and we should educate ourselves on why they made the choices they did in translations.

Well I have read in a few sources that certain things present a problem. Like the story of the Virgin Mary. According to some, the translation was botched and virgin was used instead of the word young.

Also for instance the greek idea of love. When peter and in various other gospels speak of love it has a different meaning to us then it did in that time period.

I just find it hard when I know the evolution of language, and the organic nature of language, to believe that something wasn't lost through the years of translation.

Also one last question on this.. The writers of the gospels were said to have had divine help with writing thier gospel. Is it belief then that the people who trasnlated or edited the gospels centuries later also had this divine inspiration?

i have read much of the nt in greek. i have found a few small descrepancies in some older translations that have been weeded out for the most part today. however, there is no reason to not have full confidence in any popular translation today.

We have partial manuscripts that date within 100 years of the originals. There are over 27,000 "ancient manuscripts" and 5000 in the original language of the NT.

It is well documented that we have what was actually written. The contradictions are minor and of very little significance.

the virgin mary passage in an ambiguity in the hebrew prophecy, which could be translated either virgin or maiden.

and there is no evidence of the gospels being edited later. what we have is extremely close if not exactly what the writers wrote.

quote:

---

which could be translated either virgin or maiden.

---

And to you this isn't a big difference?

Also one last question on this.. The writers of the gospels were said to have had divine help with writing thier gospel. Is it belief then that the people who trasnlated or edited the gospels centuries later also had this divine inspiration?
***************************
We have to assume the translators did the best they could, aside from their own views on the subjects being translated. But remember, the Text of the OT/NT was inspired, but not necessarily the translation...fun to compare especially the Hebrew texts and translations.

it is a difference to me today because most maidens are not virgins anymore. in the hebrew mind they are nearly synonymous, which is why they used the same word. in jesus' day, maiden almost always= virgin.

If though for some reason in this case they meant maiden in the strictest sense and not virgin, how would that effect the pillars of the faith?

If though for some reason in this case they meant maiden in the strictest sense and not virgin, how would that effect the pillars of the faith?
****************************
Reminds me of the old SNL routine "what if?" Like, "what if Travis had had a Cessna 150 at the Alamo," or "what if Moses left out some commandments?"

The NT clearly states that she was a virgin. If the OT was just a maiden and not a virgin, the NT would only add detail but in no way contradict.

Are you a troll?

not at all because the greek of the nt is extremely precise that she is a virgin. the only abiguity is in prophetic ot hebrew passages.

I hardly think this is a "what if" game. You agreed there was ambiguity. You than made the subjective call, as could of the translator, that it meant virgin not maiden given the implication at the time. I was asking a good question, of how this affects the foundation of the faith. Not something on the level of what if Moses left out a commandment.

I have studied the Pentateuch in the original Hebrew, what you would call the OT, and find that there are many subtleties, nuances and plays on words that just do not translate well into English. Additionally, in some passages there is a rhythm and rhyme for which a comprehension of the original is essential for appreciation.

If anyone is interested in a translation that is more faithful to the original, see either Hertz's, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, or Plaut's, The Torah, A Modern Commentary. Both are excellent.

The work of Dr.Hertz, the late Chief Rabbi of England, provides a clear exposition of the text and the spiritual and ethical teachings of the Torah, drawn from a wide range of scholarly literature.

I was asking a good question, of how this affects the foundation of the faith. Not something on the level of what if Moses left out a commandment.
***************
I guess you missed the humor, my fault.

If anyone is interested in a translation that is more faithful to the original, see either Hertz's, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, or Plaut's, The Torah, A Modern Commentary. Both are excellent.
**********************
As usual, opk, you give insight and references too. I never saw Plaut in seminary...guess his Torah was too "liberal."

professor gradoo:

".........I never saw Plaut in seminary...guess his Torah was too "liberal."
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

That is entirely possible. Plaut's is used in the Reform movement, Hertz's in the Orthodox.

quote:

---

Also for instance the Greek idea of love. When peter and in various other gospels speak of love it has a different meaning to us then it did in that time period.

I just find it hard when I know the evolution of language, and the organic nature of language, to believe that something wasn't lost through the years of translation.

---

Yes, the Greeks had several different words for love with different meanings. Most notably one word for a god-type love, one work for a brotherly type love and one word for a romantic type love such as your spouse. If they are all translated into English with the single word “love”, then meaning is lost and misunderstanding prevails as when Jesus asks Peter if he loves him three times.

And your observation that something is “lost” with this is true in that the understanding is lost, but not necessarily the actual original words. The issue here is more than believing the bible, but just basic issues with translating meanings between different languages and cultures.

This gets to the efficacy of attempting to translate any language into another with a word-for-word translation or a paraphrased translation. I prefer a word-for-word translation with notes added to clarify issues with meanings, idioms, local customs, etc., so it’s easier for me to still use a Thesaurus.

For example, the word used in Matthew 24 for eagle is often translated as vulture. At the time, it was written, this word included all large birds of prey without greater distinction. Over time, new words developed to make distinctions between vultures and eagles and the word used in Matthew 24 is the one the eventually came to mean eagle instead of vulture. So, which word is the correct English translation? Hard to say. But I wish every translation would have a footnote at this point to explain this.

Many translations use vultures, because eagles flying over dead people doesn’t make as much sense as vultures. However, with the Roman eagles affixed to their flagpoles as they marched into Jerusalem after the war in 70AD is a very possible, very powerful fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy, which could have a tremendous effect on how you interpret this scripture.

As another example of difficulty in translating languages, consider the following statement in 21st century English;

“Christianity is a piece of cake.”

Clearly, a word-for-word translation would be meaningless in most languages today, not to mention 2000 years from today. There are many such idioms and locally understood customs applicable to the bible that require extra-biblical study to fully understand.

For example, when the Old Testament tells us David gave his coat to Jonathan, the meaning of this is completely lost on us today. However, any person (Jewish or not) living in the ancient near east would immediately known from this that David and Jonathan cut a blood covenant together and what that really means. Incidentally, that covenant comes very much into play much later with the story of Mephibosheph. (sp?).

Surprisingly most of the symbols making the blood covenant survive to this day in our own 21st century wedding ceremony, but few people know about it.

Much of the imagery of Jesus’ work is shadowed by OT culture such as blood covenants, Jewish marriage ceremonies, temple worship, etc.

I congratulate you if you desire to understand scripture better in these ways, but I also warn you that few will share a desire to do so, and you sadly may be rebuked by Christians who think such study is “legalistic” and unnecessary because it includes sources that are outside of the bible. When many Christian’s today talk about getting “deeper” into the word, somehow they mean something that looks more a like a séance than the bible study I’m interested in.