Iskander

This is what is written , the rest are translations into many different languages

EZE 002:001 VYAMR ALY Bn-ADm OMD OL-RGLYk VADBR ATk
http://www.shamash.org/tanach/tanach...echezkel.gross

You speak like a pope or a Torquemada.

Good night,

Sheshbazzar

Ezekiel 2:1
ויאמר אלי בן־אדם עמד על־רגליך ואדבר אתך׃

IS what it is, that is written, not your alphabet soup. Don't miss the word.

And a good night to you too.





.

sweetpea7

Sheshbazzar, this is an issue that is obviously very important to you. I would like to explain my view re: the phrase "son of man". According to the wiki link I posted earlier, 'son of man' is "a primarily Semitic idiom that originated in Ancient Mesopotamia".

Now, I am trained and have worked as a Sign Language Interpreter. Why that is relevant is because I have experience interpreting from a source language to a target language. Let's take a look at the definition of an idiom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom

From the same site:

And here is our problem. The phrase son of man is an idiom used and understood by members of a culture centuries removed from our own.

In order for communication to occur, there has to be shared meaning. Shared meaning is the goal of interpreting. In contrast to interpreting, which strives for shared meaning, there is transliterating. Transliterating focuses only on translating word for word from the source language to the target language with no regard for whether or not shared meaning is occurring or even possible.

So, while I agree that you are correct that Son of Man is the word for word transliteration, I disagree that this is the most correct way to render the text. The vast majority of readers today, beyond those who pursue a sound Seminary or Divinity School education, do not have the cultural knowledge to understand the phrase son of man. It does not create shared meaning and thus is not preferable for a written text designed for the average American reader.

To give a further example, when interpreting in the court system, if a judge orders an interpreter to only interpret word for word (i.e. transliterate), then the ethical standards of interpreting require for the interpreter to inform the judge that they cannot perform the assignment. They (I) cannot do my job, because there will not be shared meaning. Word for word does not mean more accurate, actually it means inaccurate and a big waste of time. Convictions have been thrown out because of this. Concept for concept, or interpretation, is what is called for.

sweetpea7

That's great. The fact is that the vast majority of people do not have the time, money, or possibly the cognitive ability to learn Hebrew and/or Greek. Have you written an English version of the text yourself? If so, please supply it. If not, is there an English version that you would recommend? Or do you consider yourself the sole authority on how to interpret the texts?

No one has claimed this. Not all Bible Scholars are Christians, and even if the Bible Scholar working on translating the Bible is a Christian, it does not mean that they are going to corrupt the text by inserting their theological bias. They can and certainly have at times, but that does not mean that it is appropriate to make a sweeping generalization about all Christian Bible Scholars. Caution is warranted, absolutely, but caution, investigation, and an open mind.

The rest of your post#6748215 was off topic.

Toto

Aside from the fact that Koine is not ancient Greek, there was a temple to "Zeus Kyrios" at Dura Europa.

sweetpea7

This is simply argument from tradition. Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time does not mean that it is the correct or most appropriate way. It does not automatically make it more 'right'.

sweetpea7

Bolding mine. That is just not how language works, and not how interpreting from a source language to a target language works. Language is never inviolate. Language--even what people consider scripture--can have different meanings dependent upon the context. You have it backwards. It is inaccurate and dishonest to render a translation that does not convey the correct meaning based upon the best knowledge available at the time. Linguists and/or Scholars who study ancient languages can make advances in their understanding of the nuances of those ancient languages, just as advances are made in the fields of history or science.

This is why new translations of scripture are needed from time to time. Language changes over time. Meanings of the same word evolve over time, no matter what language you are dealing with. Especially with ancient writings, new manuscripts may be found and linguists make discoveries that enhance their knowledge which make a more traditional interpretation void. This is why the KJV sucks for people of today, and why it appears to me that the Common English Bible may be a good place to start for the average American who truly wants to read the Bible.

And just for the record, I am not a Christian.

hjalti

sweetpea7, I think that Sheshbazzar has a great point. And from now on I will translate my native idioms literally to english. I'm sure his theory will shove itself space in the future. And I come from mountains when I hear you say that it doesn't work, infact I think it lies in eyes up that it would be shit-easy to understand the idioms. But I'm not going to argue with you to the red death, and when all things are turned to the bottom it's a matter of taste.

sweetpea7

Ok, hjalti, whatever makes you happy. But as a native speaker of English I surely do not understand that second sentence of yours.

hjalti

Now all the dead fleas are falling from my head! :Cheeky: