Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Original Works
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 1 of 16 (58130)
09-27-2003 1:55 AM


I would like to know if anyone in these forums can show me where I can locate the original texts along with dictionaries that translate the words from their original works into the English language? I am well aware that certain words in translation can have several different meanings however I believe that it would be far wiser to judge just how the interpretation should be carried out in one's own way.
I would hope to be able to see for myself just how far the original has to be bashed about to meet expectations of bias if indeed that is the case. I thank you all for any suggestions you might be able to supply me.
He who would distinguish the true from the false must have an adequate idea of what is true and false. B.S.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Rei, posted 09-27-2003 4:10 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2003 5:49 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 8 by judge, posted 10-08-2003 8:03 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 9 by John, posted 10-09-2003 10:00 AM sidelined has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 2 of 16 (58133)
09-27-2003 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
09-27-2003 1:55 AM


Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
Look up your passage, then click the "C" button next to it.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 09-27-2003 1:55 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2003 4:35 AM Rei has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 3 of 16 (58135)
09-27-2003 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rei
09-27-2003 4:10 AM


Do be aware, however, that Blue Letter Bible uses the KJV for its main text and thus, any problems with mistranslation will be carried over unless you actually look at the concordance and see what it actually would translate as compared to what it was translated as.
For example, while the concordance lists "qadesh" (Strong's 06942) as "male temple prostitute," the word is used six times in the Bible of which 5 times the KJV claims it means "sodomite" while the sixth time writes it as "unclean."
In short, it doesn't make it easy to see how the KJV is a mistranslation. You go to a passage and find the KJV text, you click on C and see the original text broken down with the original root word compared to its KJV translation, but you have to actually click on the root word to get to the specific translation of the given word to see if the KJV's translation matches the actual meaning of the word.
It's better than nothing, but be aware that you need to hold up your end of the bargain.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rei, posted 09-27-2003 4:10 AM Rei has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 16 (58140)
09-27-2003 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
09-27-2003 1:55 AM


Of course there are no actual "original texts" of any of the Hebrew Tanakh ("Old Testament"). What we have is the best attempt to reconstruct a single text from the surviving versions that could be made around 1,000 years after Jesus (The Masoretic text). The evidence we do have (Dead Sea Scrolls, textual evidence of additions) suggests that quite major variations were accepted prior to the destruction of Jerusalem - certainly in the Prophets and the Writings. The other problem of textual corruption rather than wholesale additions or editing affected the whole collection - including the Torah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 09-27-2003 1:55 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Rei, posted 09-27-2003 6:28 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 09-27-2003 1:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 5 of 16 (58146)
09-27-2003 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
09-27-2003 5:49 AM


Not to mention the reconstructions that ended up split, such as Chronicles/Samuel and Ezra/Nehmiah.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2003 5:49 AM PaulK has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 6 of 16 (58182)
09-27-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
09-27-2003 5:49 AM


PaulK What of the hebrew masoretic texts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2003 5:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2003 2:21 PM sidelined has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 16 (58187)
09-27-2003 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by sidelined
09-27-2003 1:55 PM


Well what about it ? As I said it was the best effort that could be made to construct a single text at the time (6th-10th Centuries AD) - but we know from the Dead Sea scrolls that there wasn't a single text then - there were major variations in some books.
Aside from the known additions how can we tell that the variations preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls are not closer to the originals than the Masoretic text ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 09-27-2003 1:55 PM sidelined has not replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 8 of 16 (60181)
10-08-2003 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
09-27-2003 1:55 AM


Aramaic NT
The original NT is the Aramaic Eastern peshitta.
An interlinear is underway here.
Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament
An edited version of the eastern peshitta, the western peshitto can be found here.
http://www.peshitta.com
If you go to the syriac version you can click on an individual word and the possible meanings are given.
Be aware the western version was changed in a few places (mainly to make it more monophysite)
[This message has been edited by judge, 10-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 09-27-2003 1:55 AM sidelined has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 16 (60249)
10-09-2003 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
09-27-2003 1:55 AM


Davar and Online Bible are phenomenal.
Don't listen the Judge. The Peshitta is a very early translation, not the original.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 09-27-2003 1:55 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 10-09-2003 3:09 PM John has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 10 of 16 (60295)
10-09-2003 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
10-09-2003 10:00 AM


Ok This is where things get interesting.Since I do not know the actual languages involved and since I am trying to get the material that will show me a literal translation of the bible does anybody know of sites that are strictly scholarly in their approach to translation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 10-09-2003 10:00 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 10-09-2003 3:36 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 13 by Amlodhi, posted 10-09-2003 6:45 PM sidelined has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 11 of 16 (60298)
10-09-2003 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by sidelined
10-09-2003 3:09 PM


sidelined: you could contact a Jehovah's Witness and they will get you a copy of their "Interlinear" New Testament - Greek, literal word-for-word English, and an English translation.
But then you're on your own in getting the JW's to quit coming to your door.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 10-09-2003 3:09 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 10-09-2003 4:08 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 16 (60305)
10-09-2003 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Coragyps
10-09-2003 3:36 PM


If you want them to stop coming, let them spend time with you, be nice to them. Eventually they give up. I know an X witness, they get extra "points" for dealing with the nasty ones.
I also have found that the ones who visited me lied about what they believed to soften my critism.
I have also found out some very, very hateful things about their behavior. The "shunning" they use is cruel and unforgiving. At least it has been in one circumstance I know of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 10-09-2003 3:36 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 16 (60333)
10-09-2003 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by sidelined
10-09-2003 3:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sidelined
Ok This is where things get interesting.
Actually, it's where things get sticky. Not only is there no unanimous consensus as to which witnesses best represent the earliest text, but there is also no unanimous consensus regarding translation.
There are as many interlinear translations available as there are arguments as to which one is best. You just have to do some research and decide for yourself.
Along with an interlinear edition, however, I would also recommend Strong's exhaustive concordance. Many modern interlinear editions mark each word in the text with Strong's reference numbers as an aid to beginners. I also recommend you get at least two well attested analytical lexicons.
Then, if you're not broke yet. You will need some basic language texts so that you can begin to familiarize yourself with the language. This will become essential as you progress; as simply looking up an individual word out of context is an invitation to error.
Scholars spend years of intense immersion to become scholars, but in a couple of years (with some hard work), you can at least become proficient enough to understand what it is that the scholars are talking about.
Good luck,
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 10-09-2003 3:09 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 10-10-2003 3:36 AM Amlodhi has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 14 of 16 (60391)
10-10-2003 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Amlodhi
10-09-2003 6:45 PM


So is it safe to say that we are arguing the validity of a book that is "fleshed out" according to peoples pre-existing bias as to what meaning to assign to a word?
Among the books of the bible has there been any study done recording the areas that everybody agrees upon for interpretation even if it means leaving out key features of sentence structure?If so could we not take those areas to give us a basis on which to stand until such time as there is a way to confirm what the areas of the bible that are vague really have to say?
It seems to me that if the bible is the text upon which Christianity places its trust( and by dint of common belief so too Islam) and which people have drilled into their heads from an early age in some instances ,it would behoove the people who are aware of the shaky foundations of the structure of the bible that this become a more common knowledge.Perhaps greater open debate on television on a regular basis.It seems to me that the sorts of issues we deal with here are a "closet" mentality that we really should air since it affects so much of day to day interactions of human beings.
"Oppression can only survive through silence."
Carmen de Monteflores

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Amlodhi, posted 10-09-2003 6:45 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Amlodhi, posted 10-10-2003 11:27 AM sidelined has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 16 (60420)
10-10-2003 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by sidelined
10-10-2003 3:36 AM


No shortcuts
Hi sidelined,
quote:
Originally posted by sidelined
Among the books of the bible has there been any study done recording the areas that everybody agrees upon for interpretation. . .?
. . .it would behoove the people who are aware of the shaky foundations of the structure of the bible that this become a more common knowledge.Perhaps greater open debate on television on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. One need only look at the myriad different opinions that are posted in response to any issue on this forum.
For instance: the first sentence of the bible.
1) Did God originally create the "heavens and the earth" as we know them and then later create the sun, moon and stars? Or did God simply create the matter and space from and in which he later formed the actual spheres.
2) Is the term "Elohim" a proper plural, a royal plural, a singular title or a name of God? If Elohim is plural why is it linked to a singular, masculine verb? If it is a compound singular does it refer to the Trinity?
3) Is the "gap theory" correct in asserting that God originally created the "heavens and the earth" and then, following some cataclysm, only long ages later brooded over the waters of the now void and formless earth?
4) Do the "heavens" in this sentence refer to the cosmos as we know it, or simply to the canopy of the sky? Why does the Hebrew term "Shemayim" use the "dual" grammatical form (as does "ears", "hands" etc.)? Are there two and only two heavens? If so where are these two heavens divided and what do they consist of?
5) Why is the term "Elohim" used alone in this sentence when Gen. 2 consistently uses "YHWH Elohim"?
6) Did moses write this sentence? Did he use sources? When was it written; edited?
7)Is it allegorical?
8)Is it the direct and inerrant Word of God?
9) Is it myth? Was it borrowed from the Sumerians/Babylonians or did they all use an earlier common source?
Well, you get the idea; and this is only the first sentence.
Beware of the sure and easy answer; these are usually espoused only by those who seldom crack open the book and therefore have never understood the issues to begin with.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 10-10-2003 3:36 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by sidelined, posted 10-10-2003 2:54 PM Amlodhi has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024