PDA

View Full Version : Translation of 'the lord's prayer



lednevir
October 1st, 2005, 01:19 PM
This version is a direct translation from Aramaic to English rather than the common version which is translated from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to Old English to Modern English. I found the contrast interesting.Do you?

"O cosmic Birther of all radiance and vibration. Soften the ground of our being and carve out a space within us where your Presence can abide.

Fill us with your creativity so that we may be empowered to bear the fruit of your mission.

Let each of our actions bear fruit in accordance with our desire.

Endow us with the wisdom to produce and share what each being needs to grow and flourish.

Untie the tangled threads of destiny that bind us, as we release others from the entanglement of past mistakes.

Do not let us be seduced by that which would divert us from our true purpose, but illuminate the opportunities of the present moment.

For you are the ground and the fruitful vision, the birth, power and fulfillment, as all is gathered and made whole once again.

Amen "

Morr
October 1st, 2005, 01:29 PM
*Moved this to Theology & Philosophy*


PS -- Where did you get this translation? Who translated it? Where is the direct Arameic text?

Where does Arameic come in? (I know Jesus spoke it, but the gospels were originally written in Greek).

Zibblsnrt
October 1st, 2005, 03:18 PM
I find the contrast fake.

The Lord's Prayer was originally written in Greek, which was translated directly to Latin and the other vernaculars. The accuracy of the standard English translation can be attested to by anybody who's spent more than a month or two studying classical or Koine Greek.

This "translation" you show is a complete fabrication.

Jolixte
October 1st, 2005, 04:41 PM
http://www.thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm (http://www.thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm)

^This site has that translation on it. But it mentions aramaic manuscripts, and I thought that aramaic was a strictly spoken language.

Morr
October 1st, 2005, 05:12 PM
I am very VERY sorry, as someone who speaks/reads/writes Modern and Ancient Hebrew, and whom therefore can understand and read some Arameic -- The translation this site gives from the Arameic language is bull.

There are lines there which are totally mistranslated.

In Arameic:
Avvon d-bish-maiya, nith-qaddash shim-mukh.

In Hebrew (My personal translation from Arameic to Hebrew):
Avinu Shebashamaim, Nitqaddash shimkha.

In English (My personal translation from Hebrew to English, which is the SAME as the known "Our Father" opening line of the prayer):
Our Father Who is in the Skies, Blessed Be Your Name or the traditional Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name.


Some of the rest of the Arameic I cannot completely understand/translate. Also, Arameic, much like the Hebrew language, is not a language that is to be read in Latin letters. So it makes my translation job a lot harder, if they were written in their original Hebrew letter form, I might have had an easier job understanding it better.

But this very first line has NONE of these words, as presented in this site:
Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes, who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.

Ceres
October 1st, 2005, 06:27 PM
It just sounds a wee bit too new agey to be true.

Zibblsnrt
October 1st, 2005, 07:25 PM
^This site has that translation on it. But it mentions aramaic manuscripts, and I thought that aramaic was a strictly spoken language.

That site has a fake translation. I can only recognize a couple of words of Aramaic or Hebrew, but I can spot 'em in that passage well enough to know that the translation is completely made up.

This (http://www.v-a.com/bible/prayer.html) seems like a more reasonable one (and uses the same audio recording that site borrowed).

And plenty of Aramaic manuscripts exist; there are very few strictly spoken languages in that part of the world, to put it lightly.

I'd really like to know what the authour of that mistranslation was trying to prove...

Jolixte
October 1st, 2005, 07:27 PM
And plenty of Aramaic manuscripts exist; there are very few strictly spoken languages in that part of the world, to put it lightly.

Interesting, thanks.

equinox2
October 3rd, 2005, 08:48 PM
Wow.


Morr, Zibblesnt, etc, what a great job you did checking up on this. It's simply great to have someone here who can read aramaic and Hebrew, and objectively check is something is true or just some made up rumor.

:thumbsup: :bouncysmi :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Without reason and knowledge, we are all ships without rudders, the sport of every wind (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson). What bothers me the most is that whoever started this "translation" had to know they were being deceptive. I don't understand how someone could be so dishonest. Even the person who unwittingly spreads a lie without checking on it (though that's not good), is at least not being intentionally deceptive.

Oh well. For every shady person like that, I hope there is an honest, inquisitive person like those here at MW!

Blessed be-

Protagonist
October 4th, 2005, 01:26 AM
Without reason and knowledge, we are all ships without rudders, the sport of every wind (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson). What bothers me the most is that whoever started this "translation" had to know they were being deceptive. I don't understand how someone could be so dishonest. Even the person who unwittingly spreads a lie without checking on it (though that's not good), is at least not being intentionally deceptive.
Whoever started it probably didn't present it as a more "authentic" translation; likely just a different one, more suited to their personal beliefs. Then, someone else picked up on it, and assumed it was a more pure, less eeevil, and therefore more accurate translation. It was then passed on and not checked because, quite frankly, a lot of the people who saw it probably wanted to believe the translation was accurate. It validates a lot of the pagan/new age memes regarding Christianity: namely that it was at some point a nice, politically correct religion, but got mangled by a bunch of evil, patriarchal jerks. But, lets be honest here: Christianity arose largely from the traditions of the nomadic Hebrews and was very heavily influenced by imperial Rome. You're not going to find much warm fuzzy stuff there.

equinox2
October 5th, 2005, 12:24 PM
Protagonist wrote:

Whoever started it probably …Then, someone else …….. and not checked because…….. wanted to believe …..


Great post. Yep, that could be. I wonder about stuff like that for the origins of many “true” stories. Take, for instance the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of John. The GoM could have been written by someone as purely a fictional thing, the someone else could have found it, and assumed it was real. Same for the “translation” above, though in either case we certainly can’t rule out deliberate lying. Which is more likely? Hard to say.

In other cases it may be more clear. The GoJ was anonymous at first, then only later the line was added saying “this was written by the disciple (john 21:24)”. Whoever wrote that had to know they were changing the text, and that it hadn’t said that (or they wouldn’t have felt the need to add it). So I wonder if that was added by someone who assumed it was true and felt they were just adding what was “obviously” true anyway, or by someone specifically trying to exaggerate the gospel? Hard to say.


It validates a lot of the pagan/new age memes regarding Christianity: ….. But, lets be honest here: Christianity arose from …. You're not going to find much warm fuzzy stuff there.

Yep - I should never forget the memetic perspective. It is amazing how much people of any faith can distort their perception to fit what they wish could be true. Another good example is the whole category of “glurge” on www.snopes.com (www.snopes.com) . I’m often amazed at how so many non-Christians work so hard to make the original Christianity appear all sweetness and cuteness. I just have to set up a business selling sugar-coated Jesuses. Everybody already seems to love them, and can’t get enough of them, regardless of what is needed to be done to make them. I could get rich off from it.... Oh wait, some people have already done that......

It often seems that it’s the fundamentalists and the atheists who are most likely to honestly look at the Bible, the fundamentalists because they’ll go by it whether it is good or bad, and the atheists because they don’t have a personal stake either way.

Ah well.....
Have a fun day-

ShamanFeather
October 25th, 2005, 11:29 AM
Regardless of authenticity I am thankful for it. It is beautiful no matter what the source.