|
Post by june on Aug 4, 2011 17:57:25 GMT
I was listening to something the other day that said much of the English version bible was incorrect. Basically theoriginal books were translated incorrectly and some of the most basic and well known parts of the books of the bible have been made up by English speaking 'fathers of the church'.
For example off the top of my head - all the stuff about The Devil. When the actual description is of An Adversary. That Adam isn't mentioned as the first man. The word used means first life but wasn't named.
I also came upon this little gem Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
I mean, come on, if there is a God do you think he cares what you wear? It's obviously made up by some repressed man!
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by june on Aug 5, 2011 14:42:54 GMT
and apple is a genreal translation for fruit, not an apple which were not consumed at the time!
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Aug 5, 2011 15:24:32 GMT
While I will probably get into all sorts of trouble for saying this....we have to take into account the times......it was written when people liked to tell stories to teach. Also....it has gone thru numerous re-writes by all sorts of groups....that also had their own intentions in mind while translating and leaving out things they didn't like.........essentially it has been like telling someone a story that has been passed down thousands of years.....it gets changed a little bit with every telling until it barely resembles the original.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Aug 6, 2011 2:41:51 GMT
You can't even be sure what the First Language is. Christians used the Greek Septuagint version. All New Testament references are to that. Came the Reformation and the dissidents used the Hebrew Masoretic instead because it appears to be older.
Appearances are deceptive. The Septuagint is more recent than the Masoretic, but all the evidence is that it translates an older more traditional version than the one compiled during the 60-year Babylonian Exile, that the post-Solomon Kingdom of Israel (and Samaritans) clung to against the Temple Establishment of Judah. That the Septuagint is in Greek shows us that Jews abroad were very different then from now and no longer even understood Hebrew.
Christianity is tied firmly to Galilee and Israel, not Judah. All the New Testament references to Jews in their time and place were read as Judans/Judeans (as opposed to Israelites) but outside of Palestine, the same word meant all Yahweh-worshippers of any description and was often used by magicians and gurus not connected with them at all (like Gipsy)
What is particularly bad about the Hebrew (Masoretic) Old Testament is that the sense of Semitic languages depends very much on short vowels - and those were not written until the 7th century CE. Add that words were not separated and you get an outline with the most essential elements missing where it is possible to carve words up in more than one way and it's impossible to tell whether some letters are consonants or long vowels.
It is quite possible that multiple readings were intended apart from the obvious, because that explains some of the baffling riddles in Celtic tradition where the trick was to read across the words as spoken, and not as later written - a bit like the children's trick of repeating Iced ink until what is heard is I stink.
They were very different cultures, but that kind of wordplay has always been fundamental to religious and mystical texts and even if it was not intended, has been forced on them from scriptural commentary in the Dead Sea Scrolls up to the present-day Bible Code books
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2011 5:53:41 GMT
The modern translators have gone back to the original Hebrew / Greek texts but have also studied the documents on which the texts were drawn. I've only recently read about the theory that a document existed about the life of Christ scholars call Q en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document
|
|