Soul Invictus

I'm wondering if we could possibly get a thread going regarding what could be deemed as "advantageous" translations, that would automatically convey an idea that would not be within the realm of the original text, nor within the original concept of the culture. I'll state a few examples to better explain what I'm looking for.

1) Almah - With respect to the defenses for its translation rendering "virgin", I've read that it is reasonable for almah to be best rendered as "young woman" versus connoting virginity. I've also read that a more proper word would have been bethulah, if one were to express a concept of virginity. Is there any objection to this? This would be one example of how a lack of consensus of proper word usage can cause an improper idea to become pervasive. I'm wondering how fanatical an insistent people would be if they were at least informed to this particularly precarious circumstanc.

2) Comparison of Jewish and Christian English Translations - This touches on another example of a lacking unanimity, with what appears to be a solid argument from the Jewish party.

3)View on Greek ecclesia translation by former Church of Christ member - Outside of his testimony for leaving a dogmatic institution, he touches on his view regarding the ecclesia, as known in Western culture.

4) Liberal Christian perspective on the term 'church' - This is an example that I found that within the Christian thought, there is support for following the idea that the going approach for a necessity for attending a church-building being paramount to one's experience with God and growth for one's spirtual man. One can feel free to read the full article, however the reference I wanted to make would be for the author's 3rd paragraph (excluding the author's two sentence intro) which makes mention to translation information.

I think it would be advantageous if there was a thread that spoke about common misconceptions and myths behind the texts that so many people hold dear. Whether translation errors are intentional or not, it doesn't dilute the issue that they exist, and the magnitude for improper understanding of the texts' original intent is monumental. This is the same if one doesn't take into account the cultural connotations that the texts may convey. I'm sure we could add the elohim/plural issue in here as well, however I'm hoping this thread has given an idea of what I'm looking to gain here.

Are there threads that deal with several of these issues? Is anyone aware of any works/books that deal with any aspects of misrepresentation of the textual content of the scriptures?

Thanks all

Amos

Good point and the word "myth" itself should be understood as a true story but not in the literal description of the story.

The word virgin means undefiled or pure and has nothing to do with a physical birth but points at the way a rebirth can come about. If it was incipient form God it is a virgin birth and if it is prompted by carnal desire it will become an untimely rip from our mothers womb.

Amlodhi

Hello Soul Invictus,

I like the term you used, i.e., "advantageous" translations. I too am interested in the choice of terms used in translation; especially when there is a wide latitude of nuances to choose from.

Your reference to the term "almah" is a good case in point.

The nuances and usage of the terms "almah" and "betulah" have been argued extensively by every interested faction.

Although it may, for instance, be possible to reasonably argue that the term "almah" connotes the concept of "virgin" in the sense of Mary being both with child and virgo intactus, it is quite impossible that Isaiah's audience understood him to mean "miraculous conception or birth" when they heard him use this term.

Another good example was discussed on another thread on this board. That is the understanding of Ps. 22:16 [KJV] in regard to the term which is translated as "pierced".

I am in agreement with others on this board that the original term used here was likely "Karu" as opposed to "K'ari" (like the lion).

"Karu" is (to simplify) the third person plural of the term "Karah".

"Karah" - (properly) to dig; (figuratively) to plot; (generally) to bore or open; (from an idiom peculiar to the Hebrew) make {a banquet}. [from Strong's concordance]

"Kara" - (Chaldean) probably corresponding to "Karah" in the sense of piercing; (figuratively) to grieve. [also Strong's]

Leaving aside, for the moment, considerations of alternate punctuation and noting that the immediate context of the verse is an allusion to being encompassed by dogs (as a euphemism for an "assembly of the wicked"), it would seem to me that a more proper nuance for the translation of this term would be (dogs) digging (or even perhaps tearing, snapping or gnawing) at my hands and my feet.

IOW, unless one has a pre-determined reason to connect this passage with the crucifixion, what would be the reason to bypass the proper meaning of "Karah" in favor of a figurative or allegorical translation such as "pierced"?

Similarly, retaining "K'ari" (like the lion) as the original term here offers no improvement. One is then simply forced to extrapolate the nuance of "pierced" from "like the lion".

Soul Invictus: Thanks for introducing what I think should be an interesting topic, i. e. "advantageous" translating or "spin doctoring". I very much hope to see some more discussion of this from you as well as from some of the others on this board who have shown themselves to be very knowledgeable.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Jeremy Pallant

To what extent do you apply this concept outside of Christianity?

offa

Are there threads that deal with several of these issues? Is anyone
aware of any works/books that deal with any aspects of
misrepresentation of the textual content of the scriptures?


Try
http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...3/3sexu93.html
where Robert Countess writes,
I find it interesting, even though it might not be all that
significant, that those spared were not called virgins [bethulah] but
simply "the young girls who have not known man by lying with him"
(v:18 ). Was the writer implying by this that pagan women could not be
virginal in a high, ethical sense, but that they were only those with
a physical qualification called hymen intactus?



Thanks, Offa

Amos

Each civilization has a mythology that describes the maturation of humans to man. This 'ripening'-- as we may call it-- is archetypal to man but since it is not a rational act (which can be achieved at will or by convention) no words can exist to describe it and that is the reason why conventional words are used as metaphor or are composed into allegories to describe it. But a mythology goes further than that because it tries to enhance this transformation and to intensify its effect a certain stream of consciouness is needed against which the renewal of our mind (and body because there is no sickness in heaven) must come about.

Because this renewal is native to mankind all mythologies are transparent and can be compared with each other if we look at the archetype itself and from there we can see how they all come together or branch off and go astray.

offa

Amos,once there was 1,000 mice on the moon, then one died, after that there were more mice than that because they multiplied.

Amos

I don't get it but I am curious to know why you responded that way.

My answer was to the point and mythologies are made from word stories that mean something other then what the words actually mean. They are 'local' stories to give credibility to the story but that is about as far as literalism should be taken.

offa

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jeremy Pallant
To what extent do you apply this concept outside of Christianity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amos' reply snipped by Offa;
Because this renewal is native to mankind all mythologies are transparent and
can be compared with each other if we look at the archetype itself and from
there we can see how they all come together or branch off and go astray.


Offa;
Amos, that is circular, is there another choice. I mean, either they come
together or branch off is not conclusive. The mice on the moon can come together
or branch off. One can die and they still multiply. Circular.

I treat the Scriptures as historical. I treat the authors as telling the
TRUTH which is not really true. This thread is about "Intentional and
misleading translations issues". It is not about mythologies.

As always, Amos, I read your posts with pleasure. I hope that I
can reach your level someday ... but, alas, I remain incredibly
stupid!

Amos

Ah but they do lead and they mislead and all (?) mythologies lead and mislead in about the same way because there is only one right and that is the narrow road, so to speak, and this narrow road is the same for all of mankind or salvation would not be an metaphysical event. If this is true religion has nothing to do with this part to life except that it can prepare us for it but it cannot be an active part of it. If salvation is an active part of religion you can be sure that it sends us upon the wide road that leads to damnation and that is why also the damned can be compared with each other! A good example here is the similarity between the "children of Israel" and "born again Christians" today. Both were reborn, yes, but the question is if they were reborn from above or from below (from God through Mary or from carnal desire through Magdalene as per Jn.1:13).