Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Politcally Correct Christ
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 301 (346630)
09-05-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by nator
09-05-2006 8:55 AM


The Epic
nemesis writes:
Does anyone think that it is appropriate to change the meaning of the text in order to be 'sensitive' to the readers feelings or should anyone wanting to read the Bible take it for its face value?
There is a Christian youth minister by the name of Fred Lynch. He recently made a hip hop version of the Gospel of John that has many critics and many more supporters.
http://www.gettheepic.com/experience_epic.htm
source writes:
The Epic recaptures the Word of God in the words teens use today. It will give a fresh perspective on the Bible, helping teens experience the same excitement as was felt by its first readers. Even if teens have read passages hundreds of times before, the words will come alive as if they are hearing them for the first time.
It is not a study Bible, but rather an "experiential paraphrase."
The original books of the Bible were not written in formal language. There were no verses, or chapters, to slow down the facinating process of hearing the truth. Similarly, The Epic will facilitate a rhythmic and engaging experience of hearing the Word. The Epic recaptures the Word in a language that teens use today.
It is controversial, to be sure. Here is a sample:
TheEpic writes:
John Chapter 1
1. In the beginning was the Word, the manifest logic God of heard - unblurred shining from the inner sanctum of the Third.
2. Unbroken catastrophical quotes spoken from the essence of eternity's original notion.
3. All things were made by His motion & without Him was no-thing brought to being all matter engrossed Him.
4. In Him was life and that life was the light of men.
5. Shining in the dark but darkness didn't comprehend.
6. There was a man--whose name was John-he was the Godsend.
7. Sent to point men to the Light that on sight they might enter in.
8. John himself was not the light, just sent to represent.
9. Tha true illuminati--that's kissed the face of everybody in this world coming or going-ignorant or knowing.
10. He was in the world, alive and growing-And though He made it all they slept on him & kept on going.
11. He even came to his chosen, and His own kin closed him out & dissed em' like He was an omen.
12. But to as many as would get wide open & believe that He was just who he'd told em'-to them 'spoke-in' the power to become God's child.
13. Who were formed--
GodStyle... in full denial of any human medium- no flesh, blood or brainstorm -concevin' em strictly God Born.
14. And the Word became flesh and manifested in our midst. And we beheld his best, a style that non-could counterfeit. And we knew God had come down, like Father, like Son now: True from beginin’ to tha end, Good from tha inside out.
Nemesis--what do you think of this translation?
Edited by Phat, : added features

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nator, posted 09-05-2006 8:55 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 2:45 PM Phat has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 301 (346646)
09-05-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by arachnophilia
09-04-2006 4:46 PM


Re: On translation
no, it's used in other (non-christian) texts of the period.
quote:The first is from the Apology of Aristides, chapters 9 and 13. It relates the myth of Zeus, and his relationship with the mortal boy Ganymede. In the story, we are told that the myth is evidence that Greek gods act with moixeia (adultery) and arsenokoites. Similarly, in Hippolytus' Refutatio chapter 5, we are told the story of the evil angel Naas, and how he committed adultery with Adam in the Garden, which is how arsenokoites came into the world. Hippolytus then compares this story with that of Zeus and Ganymede [Petersen, 284]. In both of these stories an aggressor forcibly takes advantage of a weaker individual.
arsenokoites does mean homosexuality, but a very particular kind: pederasty. as far as i know, there simply was no common practice of two adult males engaged in a consentual relationship in the ancient greek world. but there was a very common custom of older men taking in younger boys as apprentices and lovers. paul is likely advising against this. (though i have no problem with paul being a homophobe. he also trashes the effeminate.)
Scholars of greek see the root "koitai" used in other contexts, some completly normal - referring to couches or beds - and in other context, as synonyms for sex or prostitution.
This is a fascinating piece and one is able to quickly realize that Paul was selected for very specific reasons. Paul was a devout Jew learned in the Halacha under the tutelage of Gamaliel, a very respected Pharisee of his day in Jewish jurisprudence. As well, he was well versed in the Greek language and the Hellenistic culture. Lastly, he was a Roman citizen and understood Roman law and culture. And as far as "arsenokoites" meaning Greek pederasty, I have no reason to doubt it based on the culture of that era. I've read a few articles concerning this and all about the subtle rules with it.
In Hebrew, though? The thing is - the Hebrew word for "father" was often used in a gender-neutral sense*, much as some people use "man" in a gender-neutral sense to try to describe both male and female humans. So, "father" could mean "parent" - in Hebrew. Do you see how that could pose an issue in translation? That simply transliterating from "father" in Hebrew to "father" in English means sacrificing a potential alternate meaning of the word as it was used in Hebrew?
(aba) means "father," a singular male parent.
(ima) means "mother," a singular female parent.
(horah or horeh) means "parent," also singular, and the gender depends on the vowels. the plural is:
(horim), or "parents." groups of both genders take the masculine plural. but only in plural.
How is that you use Abba to mean a singular male parent and then give three other descriptions, one succinctly female, the other gender-neutral, only to say that Abba is gender-neutral? That doesn't make much sense to me. If Abba is really an ambiguous term then how is that all Hebrew speakers instantly recognize that you are talking about a father?
(adam), more correctly, means "man" as in "mankind" not a singular male. though it is also the name of the first member of mankind. though it's wrong to assume that "mankind" applies to women -- the bible is NOT a feminist text, and women are not given their fair share. adam and eve are refered to as "man(kind) and his woman." while the story starts of with eve being adam's equal, the language is quite in line with the patriarchal society that spoke it.
According to Josephus, the original literal name for the meaning of Adam has come to be known as man, but literally means, 'One who is red.'
"God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. -Flavius Josephus
there is a female presence of god in the torah too, that resides in the holiest of holies. And if he doesn't have Godly male genitals, what's the justification for asserting maleness when maleness may not have been implied by the original text?
As I've shared elsewhere my beliefs concerning God is that He is not a physical being, however, He is the creator of all material as well as the creator of masculinity and femininity.
so, if god were of an indeterminant gender (either androgynous, incompatible with our understanding, or just unknown) he would be refered to in the masculine. which might have been what you were meaning to get at.
Obviously a gender role transcends mere physicality. My manhood extends well beyond the possession of a penis just as any woman's womanhood extends far beyond her possession of a vagina. The impartation of masculine and feminine traits are the dual roles in symbiosis given us by God to express what God is.
But none of this is the point of my post. This is a side issue. I don't mind discussing it lightly but I'd like the topic to steer back into the direction of questioning the motives of the translators and to figure out what, if any, implications they have.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 09-04-2006 4:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2006 8:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 301 (346649)
09-05-2006 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by arachnophilia
09-04-2006 5:01 PM


Re: son of man
while i agree that most of these are silly, this one's actually close to being right:
quote:# Avoiding another traditional phrase, "Son of Man," the Oxford text reads: "Then they will see 'the Human One' coming out of the clouds with great power and glory." (Mark 13:26)
the phrase in hebrew is ‘- (ben-adam), but mark quotes daniel 7:13, written in aramaic. the phrase used there is ‘ (ki-bar enash). (man) comes from (enosh, mankind/mortal), which in turn comes from (anash) which means sick, frail, or weak.
the phrase, "son of man" here and in ezekiel is god's particular way of referring to his prophet, or perhaps the prophet himself being humble (equivalent to "your humble narrator" in english). idiomatically, it means "lowly mortal" but that tends to lose the sense of prophecy, self-identification, and the (post-ezekiel) messianich connotation it seems to have gained.
Yes, I'm familiar with Ke-Bar-Enash in Aramaic, and yes, most certainly Yeshua adopted the terminology from Ezekiel and Daniel. One of the aspects most talked about concerning Jesus is His divnity, however, sometimes the least discussed was His humanity. Jesus wanted it to be known that the keys of heaven rest within His hands, but at the same time, that He was a man of frailty and subject to the same temptations that we are faced with. He wanted us to know these two aspects about Him. Whether the Human One and the Son of Man aren't synonymous or not really isn't the point. The Scriptures say what they say and if Daniel, Ezekiel, and Jesus used this terminology, what purpose does it serve to change it? The only time a translation is made is to accomodate a different language or to update to the most recent style of that language. As long as it doesn't lose the original meaning, all should be okay. That's why 'thy' can be changed to 'my' and 'thine' to 'mine,' without changing the defintion or the meaning of the original. My objection has more to do with the motivation.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 09-04-2006 5:01 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2006 8:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 301 (346707)
09-05-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
09-05-2006 9:03 AM


Re: The Epic
There is a Christian youth minister by the name of Fred Lynch. He recently made a hip hop version of the Gospel of John that has many critics and many more supporters.
This doesn't bother me at all. One, he isn't offering this as a translation, he is appealing to the youth of today by using today's vernacular in order to point them to the actual gospel. Nothing wrong with that. His artistic rendition is no different than me giving you a brief synopsis on the chapter. Now, if Lynch decided to print this as the actual gospel I would have a big problem with it.

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 09-05-2006 9:03 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 09-05-2006 4:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 50 of 301 (346734)
09-05-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 2:45 PM


Re: The Epic
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Now, if Lynch decided to print this as the actual gospel I would have a big problem with it.
Isn't "the actual gospel" the message behind the words, not the words themselves?
If the "original" Hebrew and Greek can be translated into English, why not into hip-hop?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 2:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 6:01 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 09-05-2006 6:03 PM ringo has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 301 (346774)
09-05-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ringo
09-05-2006 4:30 PM


Re: The Epic
Isn't "the actual gospel" the message behind the words, not the words themselves?
If the "original" Hebrew and Greek can be translated into English, why not into hip-hop?
Okay..... The Hip-Hop Bible it is. I don't envy the translator.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 09-05-2006 4:30 PM ringo has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 52 of 301 (346777)
09-05-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ringo
09-05-2006 4:30 PM


Re: The Epic
Ringo writes:
Isn't "the actual gospel" the message behind the words, not the words themselves?
If the "original" Hebrew and Greek can be translated into English, why not into hip-hop?
The authors of the epic were careful to not merely use the current street slang in their prose.
quote:
We are seeking to develop a new style of artistic literature with The Epic. Therefore, it isn't a 'slang driven' work. In fact, the colloquialisms that we use are more wide spread to Mainstream America as opposed to using sub-cultural slang words that marginalize. Of course, with time slang-words and even socially descriptive words change. This is the reason why we are going to great lengths to develop the Epic in a way that recaptures the passion and potency of the unchanging truth of God’s Word in a language that teens use today. When looking at classical works of art even in the world of mainstream Hip Hop, you find songs that were able to capture great thought and become timeless. Songs like Rappers Delight by Sugar Hill gang (1979); The Message by Grand Master Flash (1982); I ain't no joke by Rakim (1986) Nothing but a 'G' thang by Snoop Dog (1998) all have a sense of the climate of their day, but transcend time with their words and still make sense to kids today, and will speak to future generations.
What are the motives of the translators? Do they seek to change the popular perception of the Bible or do they seek to add to the rich tapestry and elaborate on the sweet meaning behind communion with our Creator?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 09-05-2006 4:30 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 09-05-2006 7:06 PM Phat has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 53 of 301 (346806)
09-05-2006 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Phat
09-05-2006 6:03 PM


Re: The Epic
Phat writes:
The authors of the epic were careful to not merely use the current street slang in their prose.
I think that's where it falls down - it's too Olde Tyme to resonate with its intended audience.
And I wonder what you mean by "merely" using the current street slang? Most of the modern translations would be just as street-slangy to a King-Jamesian ear, wouldn't they?
What are the motives of the translators?
I can only say what their motivations "should" be.
Do they seek to change the popular perception of the Bible...?
Why else would they offer a new version? If the Bible has timeless value, then it has to be presentable in a timeless fashion. As language changes its clothes, the Bible "should" keep in step.
... or do they seek to add to the rich tapestry and elaborate on the sweet meaning behind communion with our Creator?
Why else would anybody read the Bible?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 09-05-2006 6:03 PM Phat has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 54 of 301 (346819)
09-05-2006 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 11:19 AM


Re: On translation
And as far as "arsenokoites" meaning Greek pederasty, I have no reason to doubt it based on the culture of that era. I've read a few articles concerning this and all about the subtle rules with it.
yes. that said, i have little doubt that paul never have approved of modern consentual homosexual relationships -- it was considered an abomination by the jews of the time. but we can't make an actual case for this, based upon this very, and the other ones are almost as sketchy.
How is that you use Abba to mean a singular male parent and then give three other descriptions, one succinctly female, the other gender-neutral, only to say that Abba is gender-neutral? That doesn't make much sense to me. If Abba is really an ambiguous term then how is that all Hebrew speakers instantly recognize that you are talking about a father?
i didn't mean to imply that was gender-neutral. it's not, and neither is the singular of . means father, and nearest i can tell, only a male parent. it's actually something of a childish word, too, most hebrew speakers use (ab) to mean "father" and translates to something similar to "daddy."
i would like to point out two things, though.
1: i'm not particularly making a case, i'm just trying to give the best description of the language and how it should be translated. and i agree that translating a highly gender-specific word like "father" into something other than the gender-specific equivalent isn't exactly accurate. it loses the sense of the intamacy -- how would someone not know which parent they're talking, in terms of gender?
2: i don't believe that horim exists in biblical hebrew. it's a modern word, and i don't know where it comes from. and i can't seem to find it in the bible. i'll look a little harder if you want. it's entirely possible that the authors meant a gender-neutral god, but had no better word to explain the relationship than "father."
that said, i still think we should faithfully translated what they said, not what we think they might have maybe thought. leave the interpretation to the interpreters.
According to Josephus, the original literal name for the meaning of Adam has come to be known as man, but literally means, 'One who is red.'
uh, sort of. this is one of those context things.
(adam): Adam, man, mankind
(adamah): soil/clay (from which man was made)
(dam): blood, life.
(edom): red
(edom): "Edom"/Esau
they're all related to the color red, and most have slightly different vowels. "edom" means "one who is red" (he was named because of his red hair), but "adam" likely comes from "adamah" the soil god made him from, but not from "red" directly.
But none of this is the point of my post. This is a side issue. I don't mind discussing it lightly but I'd like the topic to steer back into the direction of questioning the motives of the translators and to figure out what, if any, implications they have.
it's actually sort of qabalistic. but i don't think it fits the text very well, and it distances the personal quality, especially between jesus and his god, whom he called "daddy."
Edited by arachnophilia, : broken tags galore!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 11:19 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 301 (346823)
09-05-2006 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by arachnophilia
09-04-2006 4:46 PM


Re: On translation
I'm sure you're right about all the other stuff. Fair enough.
so, if god were of an indeterminant gender (either androgynous, incompatible with our understanding, or just unknown) he would be refered to in the masculine. which might have been what you were meaning to get at.
That's what I meant. Hebrew might have to use the masculine to refer to a gender-indeterminant, but we don't, in English. So who's to say that "Father", which means just males in our language, is the proper translation?
I don't speak or read any Hebrew so thank you for your corrections on the rest of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 09-04-2006 4:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2006 8:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 56 of 301 (346824)
09-05-2006 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2006 11:32 AM


Re: son of man
One of the aspects most talked about concerning Jesus is His divnity, however, sometimes the least discussed was His humanity.
aside from the all prophet and messiah connotations, "son of man" somewhat literally means "not god." "lowly human" is a good rendering. the jps chooses to use "o mortal." this is an acceptable translation, idiomatically.
Whether the Human One and the Son of Man aren't synonymous or not really isn't the point.
"son of man" in hebrew very much precludes deity.
Scriptures say what they say and if Daniel, Ezekiel, and Jesus used this terminology, what purpose does it serve to change it?
the point i mean to make is that it's not a change. a few translations already render the phrase something like this in ezekiel and daniel. that's actually what it means.
The only time a translation is made is to accomodate a different language or to update to the most recent style of that language. As long as it doesn't lose the original meaning, all should be okay.
well, there are two kinds of translations. literal, and idiomatic. idiomatic ones try to be as consistent to the ideas and translate the thought instead of the language. it tends to lose the original wording and is subject to translator's biases. but word-for-word literal renderings often tend to lose the original meaning. pros and cons on both sides, really.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 11:32 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by robinrohan, posted 09-05-2006 8:49 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 09-05-2006 9:14 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 57 of 301 (346825)
09-05-2006 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
09-05-2006 8:12 PM


Re: On translation
That's what I meant. Hebrew might have to use the masculine to refer to a gender-indeterminant, but we don't, in English. So who's to say that "Father", which means just males in our language, is the proper translation?
because the word in hebrew means "father" as in just one male parent.
it might have been the word they were forced to use to render a concept for which they had no word -- but that's the realm of interpretation, not translation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2006 8:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 301 (346827)
09-05-2006 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 2:33 PM


Re: On translation
Because we look at the word, the context its being used in, and its relation to what it conveys.
Do you think those things are easy to do? Trivial? How do you understand the context without speaking the language? And what if the context isn't translatable, either? I mean, if anything, percieving context requires even more familiarity with idiom than simple transliteration does.
Look, I'm wearing my favorite T-shirt right now, and it's a testament to how hard translation is. It says "All your base are belong to us."
Just as is it says in the Scriptures, a man's desire will be for His God and the women's desire will be after her husband.
So, men don't desire their wives and women have no interest in faith?
Does that really seem true to you? Sorry, off-topic. But maybe this translation is simply to correct the parts of the Bible that simply don't make any sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 2:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2006 10:16 PM crashfrog has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 301 (346834)
09-05-2006 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by arachnophilia
09-05-2006 8:13 PM


Re: son of man
well, there are two kinds of translations. literal, and idiomatic. idiomatic ones try to be as consistent to the ideas and translate the thought instead of the language. it tends to lose the original wording and is subject to translator's biases. but word-for-word literal renderings often tend to lose the original meaning. pros and cons on both sides, really.
There was a writer and translator, Vladimir Nabokov, who grew up in Russia but who immigrated to the US and wrote his later novels in English, who had the theory that the only true translation was a literal rendering with the addition of copious notes, explaining all the connotations of various passages. He tried that with translating Pushkin's poem Eugene Onegin into English. The end result was several volumes, mostly notes.
If one tried that for the Bible, it would be a massive tomb, but might be the most accurate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2006 8:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2006 9:08 PM robinrohan has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 60 of 301 (346844)
09-05-2006 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by robinrohan
09-05-2006 8:49 PM


Re: son of man
yes, i think that's a good way to go too.
linguistic context and familiarity helps, and the more information the better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by robinrohan, posted 09-05-2006 8:49 PM robinrohan 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