quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used the translation that best depicts what Jesus did and said. It is called the Scholar's Version. You might try reading it.
Yes, I am aware of the mistranslation of the various versions you mentioned. Christian apologists have softened what Jesus actually said and meant. Read Bart D. Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: The Scholar's Version? That would explain a lot. If you wish me to take your quotes from the Bible seriously in future, please use an unbiased translation.

Please prove the Scholar's Version is more or less biased than any other translation of the Greek. I really am not concerned with whether or not you take my quotes seriously. Your mind is made up. Perhaps some of our readers have not made up their minds.

Tercel: It merely demonstrates the extremeness of your possition Rodahi when you start accusing a large number of mainline translations of mistranslation.

Bullshit, Tercel. My position is that I wish to know what happened. In my opinion, most translations of the NT are heavily influenced by Christian bias. They soften the harshness of Jesus attitude and words.

Tercel: If you want to believe a few of the Jesus Seminar extremists rather than the rest of the world's Biblical scholars that is fine with me.

If you wish to be a fundamentalist Christian apologist, that is fine with me. Please present evidence that the Scholar's Version is less accurate than other translations. I don't think you can. Also, prove that the members of the Jesus Seminar are "extremists."

Tercel: But if you chose to do so, I suggest you stop complaining about the quality of other people's evidence - take the log out of your own eye first.

My vision is 20/20, Tercel. Take off your rose-colored glasses.

Tercel: But while you insist on taking the Scholar's Version seriously as an accurate translation, I do not see that I can have a serious debate with you.

Translation: "rodahi, I just can't deal with your arguments and evidence anymore, so I am going to quit."

Tercel, you do what you have to do.

rodahi

Think that over. They know the criteria all too well, hence their disbelief.

My definition came from a fairly well-known source: A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer. The readers can accept the word of a Christian apologist or the definition from a standard academic source. They can also look at the context.

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Wow, Rodahi! This is some of the biggest scripture twisting I've seen from you yet, a la Morton Smith... I don't know if I'm going to have time to address any of it, but I hope so.

Your opening commentary is an example of a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well." It is a typical Christian apologetic tactic.
You have yet to prove that I have "twisted" anything. Why not save your snide remarks for someone else and deal with the textual evidence and my argument. Also, why bring up the name of a deceased world-class scholar? Do you somehow think that will impress anyone?

Tercel: You might try something other than the fancy sounding "scholar's version", though.

Yes, Ish, and you might try reading it all the way through.

Ish: It sounds as if you picked it for the impact of the name...

As I have already stated, I chose this translation because I think it best depicts Jesus' actions and words. The title has no impact; the translation does.

Ish: It's no more "scholarly" or accurate than the other translations which Tercel quoted.

Then, why all the complaining?

Ish: Finally, when did you become an expert in this Greek?

Let's be perfectly clear here. I don't claim to be an expert in Greek. But the fact is, you are not an expert either. Just because you have some knowledge of Greek, that does not make you an "expert."

Ish: I believe your translations are not entirely accurate. I just hope I have the time to show them so.

I am sure you will offer your OPINIONS as a Christian apologist. That is to be expected.

Ish: BTW, I don't know that I consider Mark the earliest gospel (though I reserve the right to be wrong here), so your arguments lose weight with me on two fronts.

You have every right to all your opinions. Your opinions do not lessen the "weight" of my argument or evidence.

Ish: Yeah, I know it's a minority view, but then so is most of yours. Besides, you can't prove Mark wrote first.

I don't have to prove anything, Ish. All I have to do is present reasonable evidence. The readers can make up their own minds.

rodahi

Back to the topic...

I have read that most Jews feel Jesus did not fullfil the messianic prohphecy. Mainly the part about the Messiah ushering in an era of peace. Hasn't been peace in the Middle East in 2,000 years!

So, most Jews are still waiting!

-T

I can't help feeling that you are missing the obvious answer that all Jews are still waiting because if they weren't they wouldn't be of Jewish faith, they'd be Christian.

And I have read of Jews that were converted to Christianity because realised their prophesies pointed to Jesus.

Again we are back to the two-fold nature of the Jewish prophesies about the Messiah. Jesus would have known the Messianic prophesies when he claimed to be the Messiah. Yet he said "I do not come to bring peace, but a sword". While claiming Messiahship, he specifically denied that the peace prophesies would come to pass any time soon. Instead they are to come to pass after the 2nd Coming when the Messiah rules God's Kingdom.

Perhaps you a right, I probably can't. A translation is a subjective thing: I could say "This is a bad translation" and you could say "no it isn't" all day, and only a reader who can translate it themselves could have an opinion. Even worse: my knowledge of NT-Greek is virtually non-existent so I can't even express a professional opinion.

However I can do two things to support my claim that it is a bad translation.
1) Someone who's better than me at Greek has serious problems with it:
Scholar's Version
A quote from this link:
2. Rodahi quoted only a few passages from the Scholar's Version and yet a number of those passages were significantly different from all other translations I could find, including both English and American translations. (If I missed any major translations availiable on the internet out by oversight then could readers please point out to me which ones I missed and where to find them)
This is simply unanimous professional evidence in the highest degree against the translation of the Scholar's Version.

I extend to Rodahi the opportunity to mention any professional translations which support the Scholar's Version.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Please present evidence that the Scholar's Version is less accurate than other translations. I don't think you can.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tercel: Perhaps you a right, I probably can't. A translation is a subjective thing: I could say "This is a bad translation" and you could say "no it isn't" all day, and only a reader who can translate it themselves could have an opinion. Even worse: my knowledge of NT-Greek is virtually non-existent so I can't even express a professional opinion.

Thank you for agreeing.


Tercel: However I can do two things to support my claim that it is a bad translation.
1) Someone who's better than me at Greek has serious problems with it:
Scholar's Version
A quote from this link:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In what follows I shall discuss the SV translations of some of the key words or phrases used frequently in the Jesus tradition. As we shall see, "mistranslation" is often a better term for what the scholars are doing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no unanimity among scholars on ANY translation. All are problematic. Modern translators have a problem understanding the idiomatic Greek spoken two thousand years ago. What they do is offer their "best guess" in many cases.

Tercel: 2. Rodahi quoted only a few passages from the Scholar's Version

I quoted NUMEROUS passages from the NT to support my argument. Thus far, you and Ish have not offered any textual evidence to support your respective views.

Tercel: and yet a number of those passages were significantly different from all other translations I could find, including both English and American translations. (If I missed any major translations availiable on the internet out by oversight then could readers please point out to me which ones I missed and where to find them)
This is simply unanimous professional evidence in the highest degree against the translation of the Scholar's Version.

Let's stick to the original issue: Are you going to offer textual evidence to counter my argument or not?

rodahi

First, Jews disbelieve in the extraordiary claims of the New Testament, such as the virgin birth. As far as they are concerned, Jesus was a bastard, born of illicit intercourse with a Roman legionary (so says the Talmud).

Second, religious Jews say Jesus failed the most important criteria of Messianship. All wars should cease after the Messiah comes, but they have not. There is no concept of a Second Coming in Judaism. The Messiah should come only once.

Third, Jews are against the Trinity thing. They're totally against believing God can be a human being. Jews regard Christianity as a worship of three gods, and the belief in Jesus as God-Man as idolatry, man-worship.

See more here in my Bible criticism article:

http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/revelbible.html

Even the "best" Scholar's Version? Glad to hear it.

Does "Modern translators" include the writers of the Scholars Version? Why should their "best guess" be considered better than the "best guess" of every other major Bible translation?

You quoted a few passages in comparison to the entire contents of the Scholar's Version, which is what I'm refering to here if you bother to read it in context.
No, we haven't offered any textual evidence yet, I might if I feel like it and have time. It however was Ish's point not mine and I wouldn't want to intrude - the only reason I jumped in was the craziness of your translation and interpretation.

Translation: I have no evidence whatsoever to support the accuracy of the Scholars Version. The only reason I think it is a good translation is because the picture is gives of Jesus fits well with my imagination.

You did ask me to prove that the Scholar's Version is an inaccurate translation. I have done so, and I await a refution of my arguments (if one exists).

If I do decide to offer textual evidence, rest assured, it shall not come from the Scholar's Version.