Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magus55 · 04-09-2011, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

magus, wanting to condemn homosexuality isn't the only bias in play. Liberal Christians are very eager to translate it as not refering to homosexuality.

Um, for good reason since the term wasn't invented until 1900 A.D.

Quote:

We know that Paul used the OT and I don't think it's implausible that Paul was thinking about something like Lev 20.13 where the words that make up arsenokoiths are used to describe same-sex intercourse.

Paul would have known the context of Leviticus, and in Hebrew - it does not mean what it means in English.

Arsenokoites also does not mean same-sex intercourse. Arseno is singular. It means "man" "bed". Which is why since the Reformation until 1958, that word was translated as masturbator.

There were 2 words in Greek that already referred to their type of same-sex behavior - Paiderraste (where we get Pederasty) and Androkoites.

Why didn't Paul use either one of them?

Based on arsenokoites being a made up word, and following Malakoi, it seems the original belief to the meaning of that phrase was married men who bought young boys as sex slaves.

But, Paul never defined the word, so there is absolutely no way to know for sure what his intention was. Arbitrarily claiming it means gays is intellectually dishonest.

sweetpea7 · 04-09-2011, 07:40 AM

Magus55, could you please provide a link to a translation done by scholars that supports your translation? Or, even the translation you are suggesting that is not done by scholars?

One does not have to use a comparable word for homosexuality to make the meaning clear. From what I have seen from all of the translations I have looked at, the original texts say something along the lines of "men who have sex with men".

Sheshbazzar · 04-09-2011, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

...Moreover, an idiom is an expression, word, or phrase whose sense means something different from what the words literally imply. When a speaker uses an idiom, the listener might mistake its actual meaning, if he or she has not heard this figure of speech before.[4] Idioms usually do not translate well; in some cases, when an idiom is translated into another language, either its meaning is changed or it is meaningless.

From the same site:

Quote:

...In the English expression to kick the bucket, a listener knowing only the meanings of kick and bucket would be unable to deduce the expression's true meaning: to die. Although this idiomatic phrase can, in fact, actually refer to kicking a bucket, native speakers of English rarely use it so. Cases like this are "opaque idioms'
Literal translation (word-by-word) of opaque idioms will not convey the same meaning in other languages...

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.

A lot of words sweet pea, only question is, do you even know what it is you are talking about?

Would someone else please kindly explain to sweet pea exactly what the words transliterate, transliterating, and transliteration mean?

sweetpea7 · 04-09-2011, 08:00 AM

Just as a side note, I want to point out that a person knowing ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, does not automatically have enough knowledge to translate or interpret a text. Knowing the language itself is not enough. One must also learn at least the rudimentary aspects of linguistics, sociolinguistics, and ethics of interpreting. In most of America today, one cannot become an interpreter despite being fluid in many languages, they must also have further training in the fields I listed above.

Reputable Bible Scholars are trained in depth in all of these fields and more. They are taught how to leave aside their personal views, that is why groups of scholars with different religious backgrounds or none at all work together. It's not fool proof, admittedly, but it doesn't warrant throwing a tantrum and automatically accusing everyone of being a dirty liar who wants to piss on scripture. Now, I am not including students from "universities" such as Bob Jones and Oral Roberts or some hokey 'get your Bible diploma in the mail' type joke of a 'school'. Mock them all you want, they deserve it.

This conversation is not going to go anywhere if people pop in saying "I know Hebrew and Greek, Here's what the text really says!! All of those Scholars and Translators are lying to you!!! Trust my translation! It's the only right one!!"

If this is anyone's assertion, please explain your credentials for interpreting ancient texts. If you do not posses said credentials, then please provide evidence from scholars or reputable translators who do have those credentials to support your assertion. Same as in science.

Most of this thread would not have happened had more people had a basic understanding of how language itself, any language (i.e. linguistics) works. It is a really fascinating and fun to learn topic. I encourage everyone to check it out.

sweetpea7 · 04-09-2011, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

A lot of words sweet pea, only question is, do you even know what it is you are talking about?

Yes, I do. I have taken two years of classes in transliteration from ASL to English and the reverse and have a degree in interpreting. I have transliterated for people who are Deaf and have a solid grasp of ASL and English at business meetings and other events across the state of Ohio. I clearly understand what transliteration is, and what interpreting is.

To be helpful:

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

Quote:

...From an information-theoretical point of view, transliteration is a mapping from one system of writing into another, word by word, or ideally letter by letter. Transliteration attempts to use a one-to-one correspondence and be exact, so that an informed reader should be able to reconstruct the original spelling of unknown transliterated words....

Bolding Mine.

Just a little snippet from the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), which is the accrediting/licensing agency for interpreters:

http://www.rid.org/content/index.cfm/AID/29

Quote:

Mission: “Support the Continued Growth and Development of the Profession”
It is the mission of RID to provide international, national, regional, state and local forums and an organizational structure for the continued growth and development of the profession of interpretation and transliteration of American Sign Language and English.
Philosophy: “Ensure Effective Communication”
The philosophy of RID is that excellence in the delivery of interpretation and transliteration services between people who are deaf or hard of hearing and people who are hearing, will ensure effective communication. As the national professional association for interpreters and transliterators, RID serves as an essential arena for its members in their pursuit of excellence.
Goal: “Promote the Profession”
It is the goal of RID to promote the profession of interpreting and transliterating American Sign Language and English.

Just to show that I'm not making crap up.

Sheshbazzar · 04-09-2011, 08:17 AM

You really ought to look up the definitions of big words before you employ them.

hint;

Quote:

so that an informed reader should be able to reconstruct the original spelling of unknown transliterated words

sweetpea7 · 04-09-2011, 08:22 AM

Ok, Sheshbazzar, you are claiming that I am using an incorrect definition of the word transliteration. I disagree, but let's pretend I agree to leave that aside for a moment. We can come back to it later. Let's just call it 'word for word translating'. Now, I am interested in your thoughts as to the points I made.

hjalti · 04-09-2011, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Um, for good reason since the term wasn't invented until 1900 A.D.

magus, I'm sorry that I use modern terms. Would you be happier if I use older ones like faggotry or sodomy?

Quote:

Arsenokoites also does not mean same-sex intercourse. Arseno is singular.

I don't see how one follows from the second. And after all, we have stuff like: "Lay with a man"

Quote:

Which is why since the Reformation until 1958, that word was translated as masturbator.

I hope that you're not claiming that it was exclusively translated as masturbator during that time.

Quote:

There were 2 words in Greek that already referred to their type of same-sex behavior - Paiderraste (where we get Pederasty) and Androkoites.

Why didn't Paul use either one of them?

He wanted to use a term derived from the good Ol'Testament perhaps?

Quote:

Based on arsenokoites being a made up word, and following Malakoi, it seems the original belief to the meaning of that phrase was married men who bought young boys as sex slaves.

So the malakoi are the young boys who were bought as sex slaves?

Quote:

Arbitrarily claiming it means gays is intellectually dishonest.

I agree.

DCHindley · 04-09-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

2. Dura Europos:
Clark Hopkins, page 192, describes the stone relief, not a temple, called Zeus Kyrios.

Quote:

Carefully inscribed in both Greek and Aramaic was the name of the deity, as well as the date a.d. 31.

I am sorry, Toto, but, in my opinion, no stone mason wrote anno domini 31, in the year CE 31.

This is either a forgery, or a fraud, or, perhaps a simple translation error by Hopkins, with the actual date given according to some other reference, and then translated by Hopkins as a.d. 31.

The inscription is discussed in The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos: a study of religious interaction in Roman Syria (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Lucinda Dirven (1999). The Amazon preview is here.

There were apparently two temples dedicated to "Zeus" at Dura Europos:

One is dedicated to the local Palmyrene god Baalshamin-Zeus Kurios. The name Zeus Kurios is not so well attested in Dura-Europos as it was in multiple inscriptions in the region of Hauran.

The second one is dedicated to the Hellenistic cult of Zeus Megistos, which Hellenes called Baalshamin, but the local Palmyrenes had come to equate with the god Gad of Dura.

There are three inscriptions dedicated to Zeus Kurios. The one under dispute in your post is a bilingual inscription in the Temple of Zeus Kurios. See pages 211-222 for a discussion about this temple, and 212-213 for transcriptions and translations of the Palmyrene and Greek inscriptions.

Palmyrene: In the month Tishri, in the year 343 (=31 CE), Bar[^cat]eh the son of Leuq[a], and his son Ababuhi, erected this stele for Baalshamin, the God.

Greek: Seleukos son of Leukios and his son Ababouis dedicated this image to Zeus Kurios, in the month Apellaios of the year 343 (=31 CE). May [the sculptor] Iaraios be remembered.

The year 343 is the Seucid era (established by Seleucus I Nicator) as observed in DuraEuropos, using a calendar year starting on the first day of the month Tishri (Oct 7) of 310 BCE (Julian). In Babylon, the first day of this era was reckoned as starting the 1st of Nisan (Apr 3) in 312 BCE (Julian). Thus, year 343 runs from Oct 7 31 CE to Oct 14, 32 BCE (Julian). The month Tishri would extend between Oct 7 and Nov 5, 31 CE (Julian).

The Seleucid and the Macedonian Greek calendars are both lunar, and in this case the date Oct 7 happening to start both the years 1 and 343 of the Seleucid era is purely by chance, as these are not fixed dates. I am not sure why, but Tishri normally correlates with the Macedonian month Dios, which falls before Apellaios. There may be a difference between when the Palmyrene calendar intercalates extra months and that of the Macedonian calendar that threw the relationship off that year. If so, then the month that began the 343rd year might have run between Nov 6 and Dec 4, 31 CE (Julian).

Calendars can be a pain ...

DCH

sweetpea7 · 04-09-2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You really ought to look up the definitions of big words before you employ them.

hint;

Quote:

so that an informed reader should be able to reconstruct the original spelling of unknown transliterated words

Right, but please notice the 'word by word' phrasing I bolded for you. I also think that this wiki definition does not fully explain the concept of transliteration. It is too narrow of a definition. Wiki is, of course, a quick go-to source, and not an academic one. Transliteration, in the world of interpretation, is not this narrowly defined. I added some info from RID for you to my previous post, and can provide more examples if you wish.

I think it is important to note as well, in your quote above from Wiki, the phrase 'an informed reader'. That is crucial. It is the background knowledge along with the text that causes the reader to understand, not the text itself. This has been my point all along. Most people who read the Bible do not have the background knowledge necessary to understand idioms from two centuries ago written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

But like I said in my earlier post, I will pretend to agree with you. Let's just call it 'word for word translating', so that the thread does not get derailed into a debate about what transliterating is.

Here, just to give you another example that I know whereof I speak:

http://danielgreene.com/2000/01/01/i...ansliterating/

Quote:

Interpreting or Transliterating?
Posted on January 1, 2000 by Daniel Greene| 2 Comments
In previous installments, I’ve written about the importance of matching the Deaf speaker’s mastery of language, vocabulary, and register, especially when it comes to our ability to produce spoken English that is worthy of that speaker’s signed language. In my last, somewhat “controversial,” column, I wrote about the dilemmas we must face as interpreters when Deaf speakers produce signed English that is “wrong” or “broken English,” (as many second language speakers do). I believe that some of the controversy really turns upon the issue of whether we are voice interpreting or voice transliterating. This article will examine more closely the process that we might use to determine whether a Deaf speaker is producing an ASL message that must be interpreted or a signed English message that must be transliterated....

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

04-09-2011, 07:40 AM	#82
sweetpea7 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 1,407	Magus55, could you please provide a link to a translation done by scholars that supports your translation? Or, even the translation you are suggesting that is not done by scholars? One does not have to use a comparable word for homosexuality to make the meaning clear. From what I have seen from all of the translations I have looked at, the original texts say something along the lines of "men who have sex with men".

04-09-2011, 08:00 AM	#84
sweetpea7 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 1,407	Just as a side note, I want to point out that a person knowing ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, does not automatically have enough knowledge to translate or interpret a text. Knowing the language itself is not enough. One must also learn at least the rudimentary aspects of linguistics, sociolinguistics, and ethics of interpreting. In most of America today, one cannot become an interpreter despite being fluid in many languages, they must also have further training in the fields I listed above. Reputable Bible Scholars are trained in depth in all of these fields and more. They are taught how to leave aside their personal views, that is why groups of scholars with different religious backgrounds or none at all work together. It's not fool proof, admittedly, but it doesn't warrant throwing a tantrum and automatically accusing everyone of being a dirty liar who wants to piss on scripture. Now, I am not including students from "universities" such as Bob Jones and Oral Roberts or some hokey 'get your Bible diploma in the mail' type joke of a 'school'. Mock them all you want, they deserve it. This conversation is not going to go anywhere if people pop in saying "I know Hebrew and Greek, Here's what the text really says!! All of those Scholars and Translators are lying to you!!! Trust my translation! It's the only right one!!" If this is anyone's assertion, please explain your credentials for interpreting ancient texts. If you do not posses said credentials, then please provide evidence from scholars or reputable translators who do have those credentials to support your assertion. Same as in science. Most of this thread would not have happened had more people had a basic understanding of how language itself, any language (i.e. linguistics) works. It is a really fascinating and fun to learn topic. I encourage everyone to check it out.

04-09-2011, 08:22 AM	#87
sweetpea7 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 1,407	Ok, Sheshbazzar, you are claiming that I am using an incorrect definition of the word transliteration. I disagree, but let's pretend I agree to leave that aside for a moment. We can come back to it later. Let's just call it 'word for word translating'. Now, I am interested in your thoughts as to the points I made.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.