5 Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text

This does not bode well for the fundamentalists........................

Dr. Joel Hoffman.Speaker, author and Bible scholar

.Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text
Posted: 10/14/11 09:35 AM ET

Stumble From the Ten Commandments to the Psalms to the Gospels, English translations of the Bible distort the original meaning of the text: The Ten Commandments don't forbid coveting. Psalm 23 is not primarily about sheep or a shepherd. And God didn't give his only begotten son because he loved the world so much.

The problems stem from flawed translation techniques that haven't been updated in hundreds of years.

In particular, there are three common ways of determining what the ancient words of the Bible mean: etymology, internal structure, and cognates. But they don't work very well.

Two other factors further degrade modern translations: a general desire not to change historical translations and a misunderstanding of how to translate metaphors like "God's hand" (God doesn't literally have a hand) or "the Lord is my shepherd."

These five issues have conspired to create English translations that conceal what the Bible originally meant.

Familiar, modern languages like English or Spanish illustrate what goes wrong.

The English words "ballot" and "bullet" share an ancient source, but they mean completely different things. Likewise, "grammar" and "glamour" used to be the same word, but most students don't find grammar to be glamorous. These pairs are examples of how etymology is misleading.

Knowing what an office is does not shed light on what an officer does, even though "officer" has the word "office" in it, just as sweetbread is not sweet and it's not bread. These words demonstrate the danger of relying on internal structure -- roots, prefixes, suffixes and so forth -- to discern a word's meaning. (Also, a "strip mall" isn't what some people might suspect.)

There's a word "demand" in French and it confuses English speakers because it means "to ask," not "to demand."

In Spanish, "embarazada," does not mean "embarrassed" but rather "pregnant." These kinds of related words (known as cognates) are common in various languages. It stands to reason that if the words are related they ought to mean the same thing, but it's not true. Cognates, like etymology and internal structure, are unreliable.

Proverbs 28:21 in the 400-year-old classic English translation known as the King James Version (KJV) cautions, oddly, that "to have respect of persons is not good." But 400 years ago, "respect" meant "to be partial," and the point was to avoid favoritism.

Additionally, the KJV's "turtle" whose voice is heard in the beautiful imagery of Song of Solomon is a bird. These examples demonstrate a fourth problem plaguing modern translations: the power of history.

In part because of the generally conservative nature of religion -- "out with the old, in with the new" is not a particularly welcome sentiment at most seminaries -- these and other familiar but outdated translations often stick with us and continue to influence Bible translators. (One especially grievous case is the well known but widely misunderstood phrase "God so loved the world" in John 3:16. The meaning of "so" here has changed.)

Shakespeare writes that "Juliet is the sun." But even though melanoma comes from exposure to the sun, Shakespeare didn't mean that Juliet is that girl who causes skin cancer. Obviously, he meant that she has some very specific and culturally defined qualities of the sun, such as beauty. This represents perhaps the trickiest flaw in modern translations: missing the important parts of metaphor and other symbolic language.

Unfortunately, etymology, internal structure, and cognates are the three pillars of Bible translation. And with them, the power of history and a focus on the wrong parts of metaphor degrade all English Bibles even more.

So your Bible translation contains flaws as bad as: mixing up "ballot" and "bullet" (etymology), thinking that all officers work in offices (internal structure), mixing up requests and demands (cognates), thinking that turtles fly (history), and thinking that romance must involve cancer (metaphor).

Fortunately, more modern and reliable translation practices are available, though they haven't made their way into published Bible translations yet. Still, more than at any other time since the Bible was composed, we are better equipped now to understand the ancient words of Scripture.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-hoffman/five-ways-your-bible-tran_b_1007058.html

 

Two other factors further degrade modern translations: a general desire not to change historical translations and a misunderstanding of how to translate metaphors like "God's hand" (God doesn't literally have a hand) or "the Lord is my shepherd."

These five issues have conspired to create English translations that conceal what the Bible originally meant.

 

Alright. This is your thread. Please answer. What did the Bible really mean?

Quantrill

 

The OP brought up some valid points about tranlation. I worked as a foreign language translator for several years, so I'm well aware of the varied interpretations that one word or phrase can have.

Another example I read about years ago was the phrase in Exodus 22:18 about not letting a witch live. I read that the original word translated as witch had several possible meanings back then, including "poisoner." Translations can sometimes reflect the perspective of the translator, rather than the original author's meaning, which is why I question the concept of Biblical inerrancy.

 

So you have first hand knowledge of translation problems... That would seem to be especially true of metaphors and the understanding of symbols in the modern days..

So its don't suffer a poisoner to live.... fascinating.

 

Alot of the bible was written in artsy Ancient Hebrew poetic forms, and yes, poetry cannot be taken anymore literally today then it could 2,000 years ago.

The Bible would still have recognizable rhythms and modes if the pronunciation of words hadnt changed over the millennia. This is true for all old poetry.

This is probably the biggest flaw for those who take the bible literal.

 

I agree completely.........

 

Margot, your post is all over the place.
In one line you say "The Ten Commandments don't forbid coveting" and you do not explain how you come to this.
Then you go on about english and spanish translation, but spanish has nothing to do with the bible.
Then you go on about metaphores that are not understood anymore.

I find that changing a metaphore to be understood in today's language, is the best way to degrade the bible into a shalow text that will loose all it's properties.
Just like we should not rewrite makbeth or "between two cities".
We can add comments that explain the metaphores and the old way of writing, so people will get to understand it, but not change the text.
Now as to errors, could you give examples for the errors in translations and where you thing the error come from ?

 

Dr. Joel Hoffman.Speaker, author and Bible scholar is the author of this piece. You should READ the article and determine WHO the author is..

 

This is another liberal hack trying to justify the modern lifestyles through the Bible. His choosing Huffington shows his attitudes. He is justifying sin with his wrong interpretations

 

I'm sure there are errors in KJ translation, but the article you provided is a bigger error.

 

Any serious Bible student works with the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. I use it all the time, because it helps to better illustrate certain passages. I also use many different versions of the english Bible.

 

That is from the article... note the NAME of the author.

 

I realize you didn't WRITE the article, but I was just posting to you. And I was just relating to you that serious people who seek the truth in scripture, use the original languages.

So what is the point of this article, and whats YOUR point?

 

Is that why you use the 'article'. That way you don't have to answer the hard questions, because you don't know what your talking about? I think so.

It's easy to present an article when it says what your wanting it to say. Harder to defend it if its not yours.

This is why you leave so many unanswered questions.

Quantrill

 

I notice my NIV translation doesn't have the Proverbs or turtle issues, which are the only actual mistranslations that he mentions.

Otherwise the article seems to just be on, how, hypothetically, someone could mistranslate something, as opposed to much about what he doesn't think is right about even the ancient King James version to say nothing of more modern versions.

Hmmm I'm vaguely remembering something. Is there some branch of Christianity where the King James version is a big deal? Or is it just held as a good effort from long ago by everybody?

 

There are several great examples of mnistranslations in the bible.

The first is that when "God created the Heavens and the Earth", he actually created the universe itself and not actually Heaven. This mistranslation is caused by the different language used in the court of King Henry VIII when he ordered the bible to be translated to English when he formed the Church of England after breaking off from the Roman Catholic Church.

Another is that the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill", does not literally mean that killing, in and of itself, is a sin, because that would mean that all of the times god ordered people to be killed in the bible including, the execution of criminals, adulturers, ect, the killing of enemies in war, and the execution of non-hebrews, woman and children, which was done throughout the time when Joshua was conquering Caanan. It would also mean that god spiting the wicked is a sin as well. INstead, the proper translation is "Thou shalt no commit murder".

 

The King James Version is a good and trustworthy version. Their are mistakes due to miscopying or difference of the Old English language, but not errors in the Bible. These copyist or scribal mistakes, are known. And they do nothing to add or change any doctrine in Scripture.

And, we know where they are, and you have the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to go back to and reference.

There are those who believe the KJV is the only correct version. I don't see it, though I think it is the best version.

Quantrill

 

I would say this man makes the Bible say what he wants it to say to come against Christians

http://blog.joelmhoffman.com/2011/01/31/the-bible-says-so-and-other-stupid-arguments/

 

The KJV is my favorite as it is the one that I was first introduced to. I learned at an early age, how to read it without engaging my fantasy with images that were not in accord with what was written. I have since, studied most every translation that has been printed and sometimes refer to those other translations.... but KJV remains at the top of my list. The Geneva translation is one that was not necessarily influenced by the kingly authority, nor by the dictates of the Pope.

 

If this is what you read in English, then this is not the Bible.
The Bible say "do not commit murder".
There is a big difference between murder and kill. One is the intent factor which is THE major in all modern law systems (as well as the biblical one).
If you intend to kill someone and you kill him, this is murder, if you happen to kill him without intent (for example: car exident), this is killing and not murder.
Another factor is self defense. If you kill someone in self defense, this is a kill and not a murder.

 

A particular verse that bothers me is Proverbs 6:26. The version that fits Christian teachings is "a prostitute 'diminishes' a man to a loaf of bread" (And) an adultress hunts a mans soul; implying obviously, that neither is a good idea. Newer versions say "a prostitute 'can be had' for a loaf of bread (but) an adulteress destroys a man's soul; implying obviously That pros are the wise man's choice!!!?? I welcome all thoughts from everyone.. thanks.

 

The popularity of the bible is in large part because it says whatever anyone wants it to say.

Yes slaves, no slaves. Yes flood, no flood. Trinity, no trinity.

And then you guys worry about how someone else translated it, when you all do your own?

 

Not all, but a lot of Christians have treated the Bible's authenticity and authority with skepticism, and search for answers. Honorable and intelligent people who believe in Christ also do their research. Here's one of them explaining how he can be sure of the Bible's authenticity and authority:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c24okgroOiw

 

I do agree and accept that there are intelligent and honourable people who believe in God and Jesus, and do their conscientious best to follow Christ and be the best they can be.