PDA

View Full Version : What if it was all the translators instead?



LadyCelt
May 23rd, 2008, 04:17 PM
just had a thought. what if? what if paul and peter etc weren't so mean or sexist? what if it was translators, especially around king james translation?

Pneumatikos
August 1st, 2008, 07:35 PM
just had a thought. what if? what if paul and peter etc weren't so mean or sexist? what if it was translators, especially around king james translation?


The problems were not just with the original writers. The Bible was written over 1500 years and translated fro the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic into Latin, German french and English. Now it is the most translated and distributed books in history.

What you have to think that if the creator of the universe wanted to talk to us, He would not let us mess it up.

And yes The early church leaders were sexist.

Rosetta Morrigan
March 26th, 2009, 05:07 PM
just had a thought. what if? what if paul and peter etc weren't so mean or sexist? what if it was translators, especially around king james translation?

That's what I think. I think there's been a lot of changes, misinterpretation, addition and subtraction by the translators of the Bible. The Bible is made by man and translated by man and therefore bound to have it's flaws. It's our job to sort through all the crap and find what it all really means to us personally. :hahugh:

LacyRoze
March 26th, 2009, 05:20 PM
That's what I think. I think there's been a lot of changes, misinterpretation, addition and subtraction by the translators of the Bible. The Bible is made by man and translated by man and therefore bound to have it's flaws. It's our job to sort through all the crap and find what it all really means to us personally. :hahugh:

My thoughts exactly...:uhhuhuh:

Cloaked Raven
March 26th, 2009, 05:24 PM
That's what I think. I think there's been a lot of changes, misinterpretation, addition and subtraction by the translators of the Bible. The Bible is made by man and translated by man and therefore bound to have it's flaws. It's our job to sort through all the crap and find what it all really means to us personally. :hahugh:
That's what I think also.

SphinYote
March 26th, 2009, 05:26 PM
Another factor: there's plenty of intriguing evidence that the Gospels were possibly written about a century after their supposed authors had lived.

That detail aside, I do believe there are plenty of translation flaws. However, you also have to keep in mind the cultural differences...what was written would need to be written in a way as to not upset the maintainers of the status quo so much that they wouldn't listen.

LostSheep
March 26th, 2009, 05:28 PM
I think that Paul was essentially like one of the Old Testament prophets, in that what he wrote was perhaps too complex for, the subsequent editors may have felt, the audience that they were translating for (probably fairly uneducated clergy) to get their heads around, and so boiled it down in as simple terms (while of course angling it towards their own prejudices). I think Paul's mind was much more complex than the simple set of bullet points that his thoughts were condensed into. And again, context is all; his comments about what's now taken to refer specifically to homosexuality were, some say, originally referring to more general abuses of hospitality and general lewd conduct, and the homosexuality part was emphasised (as were the remarks about women) to appeal to the prejudices of the time.

jodarius
March 26th, 2009, 05:31 PM
What everyone fails to think about is that the bible as it exists today was the work of a group of powerful men who only wanted to keep that power. The church and the bible was all control. So when the bible was made they picked and chose what parts to put in and worked other parts to say what they wanted it to. The bible is the work of men, and men are often corrupt when they have the power those men had.

LostSheep
March 26th, 2009, 05:44 PM
What everyone fails to think about is that the bible as it exists today was the work of a group of powerful men who only wanted to keep that power. The church and the bible was all control. So when the bible was made they picked and chose what parts to put in and worked other parts to say what they wanted it to. The bible is the work of men, and men are often corrupt when they have the power those men had.

Indeed. The choice of the books that went into the bible as we know it now was decided, basically, by the Roman emperor. And he was going to want to choose the offical text for his new official religion that would make sure the people knew their place, wouldn't he?

jodarius
March 26th, 2009, 05:50 PM
I mean how many times did the church use their "sacred" ideals to their advantage. Can anyone say christmas in december? and Easter? come on bunnies and chicks?

Cunae
March 26th, 2009, 06:17 PM
I mean how many times did the church use their "sacred" ideals to their advantage. Can anyone say christmas in december? and Easter? come on bunnies and chicks?

Not sure what the point is on this one. The Bible really has nothing to do with the ridiculous holiday fluff we see today.

I was raised on the King James but pulled away from it over time... to the new KJV, to the NIV and now I prefer the CEV (Contemporary English Version) which uses "human" instead of "man" etc.

It also incorporates non-sexist interpretations of some passages. Others remain so because of the author, the culture and times.

To me, the Bible is interesting overall,l with a lot of messages from God to people, and a ton of history relevant to the coming of Christ. That's what I care about. And the words of Christ Himself... they remain precious to my heart and the most important text in the Bible. I could live on them alone, but the rest of the Bible puts them into context.

jodarius
March 26th, 2009, 06:24 PM
well jesus was not born in december, reason Christmas falls in december is because christian leaders wanted to stomp out pagan holidays in newly converted countries, so they moved their holidays onto the days that the pagans had their holidays. Thats why the birth of christ is celebrated in easter and why the resurrection is celebrated with chicks and bunnies, the symbols of spring and new life.

Winged Mermaid
April 3rd, 2009, 04:10 PM
This is why I do not take the Bible literally. I think it is divinely inspired and has good stories that we need to learn from, as well as some history. However, even if it was a direct text in the beginning it's been so corrupted by human hand that (in MY opinion) can not be trusted to be taken so literal, the way most Christians do. I mean, "Thou shout not suffer a witch to live" is actually "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" because there were Jews being poisoned in that time in history. Another thing that makes it so the bible can not be taken literally is that unless you know how they used certain phrases and words IN THAT POINT IN HISTORY you can't really understand exactly what they were trying to convey.

I also believe that the King Jame's version was twisted for political reasons. But *shrug* maybe that's just me. Just my $0.02