Freethought & Rationalism Archive

OneInFundieville · 11-22-2007, 09:35 PM

We have plenty of modern translations that adapt to modern grammar, inter-personal vocabulary, etc.

But none seem to catch up with the vocabulary of contemporary knowledge (across a number of fields).

Consider Exodus 32:9 ("It is a stiffnecked people").

"Stiffnecked" people can become "obstinate" people (NASB), "stubborn, hard-headed" people (The Message), "stubborn and rebellious" people (TLB) or simply "stubborn" (NIRV).

"Stiffnecked" simply seems to be a metaphorical anatomical term for "stubborn."

But then when we look at other words such as "heart," it is completely different.

Consider Matthew 5:28 ("committed adultery with her in his heart").

Seems to get universally translated into "heart."

Wouldn't a more modern translation of kardia often be something like mind, or emotions, or imagination?

Why is the historical metaphorical anatomical term retained here yet the other example typically lost?

I can think of a number of other words for which there might be more contemporary translations. Logos? Pneuma? Psuchē? Sarx?

Is there explanation for what is kept in it's out-of-date historical context vs. what is brought up-to-date?

Toto · 11-22-2007, 11:57 PM

kardia literally means heart. It is not a metaphor: the ancients thought that the mind resided in the heart. There are similar anatomical references that have different meanings - e.g.

Quote:

Song of Solomon 5:4
My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

since emotions were thought to reside in the bowels - a modern person would rather say "my heart was moved for him."

Lugubert · 11-23-2007, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

kardia literally means heart. It is not a metaphor: the ancients thought that the mind resided in the heart. There are similar anatomical references that have different meanings - e.g.

Quote:

Song of Solomon 5:4
My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

since emotions were thought to reside in the bowels - a modern person would rather say "my heart was moved for him."

Haven't time to investigate now, but isn't "of the door" a KJV addition? IIRC, there is an interpretation that the hole refers to the girl's (hm, gotta run to cathc the train).

Ray Moscow · 11-23-2007, 02:17 AM

Popular translations usually try to keep a lot of the familiar religious language of their predecessors.

A really fresh translation can be an eye-opener, for example the translation of the canonical gospels in The Complete Gospels. One gets so used to hearing "heaven" in its religious context that one forgets that the word means "sky".

Ray

Lucretius · 11-23-2007, 02:48 AM

I think the standard answer is that they wish to "preserve the beautiful language" in the KJV and that is is the one true faithful (pun intended)version.
The cynic in me sometimes thinks that the reason for not that many versions in more modern language is too deliberately make is less comprehensible to a modern reader,for how can you argue against something when you don't quite grasp the real meaning of it in the first place

And yes I was under the impression that .

Quote:

Song of Solomon 5:4
My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

was a sexual reference,after all the Song of Solomon is one really long "dirty book "

Doug Shaver · 11-23-2007, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneInFundieville

Is there explanation for what is kept in it's out-of-date historical context vs. what is brought up-to-date?

Yes. A translation should accurately convey the thinking of the original author, insofar as we can determine how and what they actually thought. There is no justification for revising their work using assumptions about what they would have written if they had known what we know now.

Clivedurdle · 11-23-2007, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneInFundieville

Is there explanation for what is kept in it's out-of-date historical context vs. what is brought up-to-date?

Yes. A translation should accurately convey the thinking of the original author, insofar as we can determine how and what they actually thought. There is no justification for revising their work using assumptions about what they would have written if they had known what we know now.

But can we determine what they thought?

Is there then a need for a series of translations?

Pure - youngs literal?
Reasonable attempt to present old thinking now - probably most Bibles
Translation, paraphrase into modern thinking with clear explanations - probably does not exist,

We do have the converse with paraphrases - attempts to tell us what modern xians assume it says.

Quote:

Umberto Eco writes in Baudolino:

in the Acts of the Apostles it says that God from one man devised our humankind to inhabit the entire face of the earth, its face - not the other side, which doesn't exist.

"I don't know if you have ever studied the measurements of the Temple, well don't, because it is enough to drive you crazy. In Kings it says... In chronicles it says...

The problem however arises when you read the vision of Ezekiel. Not one measurement holds up, and so a number of pious men have admitted that Ezekiel had indeed had a vision, which is a bit like saying he had drunk too much and was seeing double. Nothing wrong with that , poor Ezekiel (he also had a right to his fun), but then Richard of St Victoire reasoned as follows: if everything, every number, every straw in the Bible has a spiritual meaning, we must clearly understand what it says literally, because it is one thing to say , for the spiritual meaning, that something is three long and another's length is nine, since these two numbers have different mystical meanings.

"The most alert commentators have not succeeded in establishing the exact structure of the Temple. You Christians do not understand that the sacred text is born from a Voice. The Lord, haqadoch baruch hu, that the holy one, may his name always be blessed , when he speaks to his prophets, allows them to hear sounds, but does not show figures, as you people do, with your illuminated pages. The voice surely provokes images in the heart of the prophet, but these images are not immobile; they liquefy, change shape according to the melody of that voice, and if you want to reduce to images the voice of the Lord, blessed always be his name, you freeze that voice, as if it were fresh water turning to ice that no longer quenches thirst, but numbs the limbs in the chill of death,"

OneInFundieville · 11-23-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

kardia literally means heart. It is not a metaphor: the ancients thought that the mind resided in the heart.

Yes "kardia" literally means heart, but does it not mean center of ideas, emotions, and imaginations ever as much?

Between the ancient era and the modern era it was found, more or less, to be wrong.

Why is it translated "committed adultery with her in his heart" rather than "committed adultery with her in his imagination?"

While neither contemporary English word captures the orginal [incorrectly] fused concept, it seems the later, using the term imagination seems to be the closer of the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are similar anatomical references that have different meanings - e.g.

Quote:

Song of Solomon 5:4
My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

since emotions were thought to reside in the bowels - a modern person would rather say "my heart was moved for him."

An excellent example.

"May-aw'" is "bowels" as in the KJV.

But take a look at it in the NASB.

"My beloved extended his hand through the opening, And my feelings were aroused for him.

There rather than the anatomical structure (or mismatched? one such as "heart" in the NIV), the translators of the NASB picked more modern orientation.

OneInFundieville · 11-23-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anders

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

kardia literally means heart. It is not a metaphor: the ancients thought that the mind resided in the heart. There are similar anatomical references that have different meanings - e.g.

since emotions were thought to reside in the bowels - a modern person would rather say "my heart was moved for him."

Haven't time to investigate now, but isn't "of the door" a KJV addition? IIRC, there is an interpretation that the hole refers to the girl's (hm, gotta run to cathc the train).

Yes, was an KJV addition and has since continued on in much tradition.

NLT gentrifies it with "unlatch the door."

In the NIV he "thrust his hand through the latch-opening."

In the NIRV he "put his hand through the opening."

In the NASB he "extended his hand through the opening."

OneInFundieville · 11-23-2007, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

Popular translations usually try to keep a lot of the familiar religious language of their predecessors.

A really fresh translation can be an eye-opener, for example the translation of the canonical gospels in The Complete Gospels. One gets so used to hearing "heaven" in its religious context that one forgets that the word means "sky".

Ray

Ray, spot on.

Why isn't "shâmayim" or "ouranos" just translated as sky?

In context...

Quote:

...because the administration of the sky is like this. Previously there was a dictator who decided to do a check on the financial transactions of his senior staff. In course of this investigation, a senior administration official who owed the dictator several million of dollars was brought in. The senior administrator did not have enough to pay his debt. In retribution, the dictator planned to have him, his wife, his children and his personal posessions sold into slavery, in order to pay back the debt.

The senior administrator grovelled before the dictator, 'Wait a minute!,' he begged, 'and I will pay you back everything!' In an act of mercy, the dictator cancelled the debt and let him go.

"Subsequently the same senior official went out and met one of his more junior staffers who owed him just a few dollars. Physically assaulting him, he demanded, 'Pay back what you owe me!' The junior staff member grovelled, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back!' But he refused; instead, he had him detained until he should pay the debt.

When the remainder of the administration staff learned of what had happened, they were enraged and went to the dictator and told him everything.

The dictator called the senior administrator into his office. 'You worthless slave!' he said. 'I forgave you the whole amount you owed me, just because you asked me to. You should have had similar mercy on your staff.'

The dictator was enraged, and had the senior official imprisoned until he could pay back the full amount of his debt."

And Jesus concluded, "That is how my father in the sky will treat every one of you unless you forgive your fellow person with sincere feelings."

I tried to find an example that used "sky" as well as "heart."

But anyone, isn't in today's modern world an individual functioning as a sole, individual sovereign head of state referred to as a dictator rather than a king?

11-22-2007, 09:35 PM	#1
OneInFundieville Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Where I go Posts: 2,168	Why no modern translations? We have plenty of modern translations that adapt to modern grammar, inter-personal vocabulary, etc. But none seem to catch up with the vocabulary of contemporary knowledge (across a number of fields). Consider Exodus 32:9 ("It is a stiffnecked people"). "Stiffnecked" people can become "obstinate" people (NASB), "stubborn, hard-headed" people (The Message), "stubborn and rebellious" people (TLB) or simply "stubborn" (NIRV). "Stiffnecked" simply seems to be a metaphorical anatomical term for "stubborn." But then when we look at other words such as "heart," it is completely different. Consider Matthew 5:28 ("committed adultery with her in his heart"). Seems to get universally translated into "heart." Wouldn't a more modern translation of kardia often be something like mind, or emotions, or imagination? Why is the historical metaphorical anatomical term retained here yet the other example typically lost? I can think of a number of other words for which there might be more contemporary translations. Logos? Pneuma? Psuchē? Sarx? Is there explanation for what is kept in it's out-of-date historical context vs. what is brought up-to-date?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-23-2007, 02:17 AM	#4
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	Popular translations usually try to keep a lot of the familiar religious language of their predecessors. A really fresh translation can be an eye-opener, for example the translation of the canonical gospels in The Complete Gospels. One gets so used to hearing "heaven" in its religious context that one forgets that the word means "sky". Ray

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.