Politcally Correct Christ

In the last few months I have, for the first time, begun the attempt to learn a foreign language. Additionally, I have been tutoring speakers of a different foreign language in English.I'm sure not an expert but I can already see that a literal translation is one or more of meaningless, wrong or too unwieldy (as RR in Message 59).You have to translate the meaning.Meanwhile, I'll check this idea with two different professional translaters working in different language. If they disagree I'll get back to you.

what language you learning?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Eu estou aprendendo Portugues.I am tutoring English to a couple of Manderin speakers.

good luck--on both adventures.I wish I remember more spanish, but . . .
(at least I understood what you wrote in portuguese--I am (learning?) portuguese)

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

quote:

---

Because we look at the word, the context its being used in, and its relation to what it conveys.

---

It wouldn't be an easy thing for us at all, however, if you have a Hebrew and English scholar who is well versed in both languages and somebody that understands the timeframe this is more than possible. Translating the Bible is no easy task, this much is true. It takes a meticulous attention to detail. Well, that's not entirely what it means. It means God has predispositioned women and men a certain way in accordance with their masculinity or feminity. Its speaking about submission, but not in the way you might automatically find yourself associating with. Submission here means honoring and that is a give take situation, just as it says in Ephesians. Anyway, I found a decent article on the subject, however, yes its a bit OT so we probably shouldn't spend much time on it. In any case, I hope it gets my point across. Link

---

"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

Precisely!!

And you think every such scholar is going to come to the exact same conclusions about context?We don't even see that in our language, NJ. Even native speakers of English disagree about what a given utterance might mean. The entire legal profession is based on those disagreements.The idea that translation is a simple matter, where everyone who attempts it arrives at the same result, is absurd. Then why doesn't it say "honoring", if that's what it means? If you have to tell me that the word used means something different than what a reader would naturally assume that it means, isn't that basically proof that translation isn't nearly as easy as you make it out to be? That it's always a large part about the personal judgement of the individual translator?

No, however the differences are subtle and essentially do not change the definitions of words. Its just the Webster's and Oxford dictionaries. They are disimlar only marignally. But all of this misses the point. Father doesn't mean Father-Mother. It just doesn't. That's just hype for the sake of the overly sensitive. No one is in disagreement on what Mom or Dad means. You say Mom, you mean a female parent. You say Dad, you mean a male parent. There is no ambiguity. Everyone should arrive at the same result. That's why we have Dictionaries in the first place. Its to establish a concise rendering for all English speakers, or Spanish speakers, or Russian speakers to learn from. Imagine the tumult and chaos that would ensue if we just started changing the meaning of words. Because the word 'submission' has come to mean something that it never intended. Its come to mean a negative aspect instead of one about honor and respect. And this is the problem with changing words to mean whatever somebody wants it to mean.

---

"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

But they don't. They don't ever. I mean all the different Bibles are proof enough of that.How do you explain this? Translators are all idiots and if they only did it your way, they'd all get the same result? Look at the word, NJ. "Sub-mission." "sub", as in "under". To be under someone else. Synonym - inferior.It does not have the original meaning that you ascribe to it. That's just something you're making up right now, to make a statement in the Bible more palatable. You don't believe that the Bible says that women are inferior to men, so you're changing the translation to be more like what you already believe.Which is exactly what you criticized in your OP. What gives?

The translations are the same. The only disimilarity is them using different synonyms. Nobody is changing the meaning of the text, except Oxford University Press. What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to have a negative connotation. That's all in your mind. If you have a boss, you are inferior to him. Does that means you are less of a person than him? No, it means that he's in charge and that's all that it means. Its only someone that has aspirations to be in charge themselves that assigns or engenders some negative aspect to it. The Bible says that the man is to be the head of the house, this is true. That doesn't mean women are inferior as in they are stupid or incapable. It means that God gave man the responsibility to oversee the matters of the home, not that he absolute tyrranical reign over his wife. Think of it another context. A parent is superior to their children right? Do you see that as being negative? A man being the head of the house was never intended for him to always be right on matters. It doesn't mean that he gets all the say. To the contrary. Mutual submission is required by both parties for a helathy marriage and family. It was desinged according to the strength's and weaknesses that God bestows on males and females. It also doesn't mean that the wife has no say in the affairs of the home. Here's what the Word says:" Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." -Ephesians 5:21-33

---

"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

Why? Why would they choose to use different synonyms if, as you suggest, it's a simple matter of looking up the transliteration in a dictionary? No, but it means I'm a less experienced person; a person with less of a record of proven judgement; a person with less professional contacts; a person with less of a proven ability to manage others, work from a budget, and do all the other stuff my boss does.So, in fact, there's a reason that my boss is my boss instead of me. But outside of work? He's just a guy, like me. I see him at Wal-Mart sometimes and we chat. He's out there in the field, usually, aspirating beetles along with the rest of us.The assertion of the Bible is that men are superior to women in life. Not specific to any context, but just in general. How does that not carry a negative connotation? It's a negative statement. What do you think goes on in a home that needs to be "overseen"? Isn't it a little ridiculous to assert that homemaking is so complicated that you need a whole command structure to make it work?Have you ever gone out to eat with some friends? Who usually picks the restaurant? I presume you all do. Somehow you're all able to do that without one person needing to take the role of an overseer. Why do you think it works differently when you're married? What do you think happens in a home that two adults can't deal with as partners, without needing one person to be master and the other to be subordinate? Show me in the Bible where it says that a man should submit to his wife as he submits to God. It doesn't, right?A man submitting to God and a wife submitting to him isn't mutual submission, it's a chain of command. Mutual submission is symmetric submission to each other, and I don't see that in the Bible. Just because my boss has a boss, doesn't make him and me partners. The submission is not mutual.

there's an additional problem with translating ancient texts, such as the bible. we can't go back and ask the authors. the "cultural context" part of translating idioms isn't exactly easy to come by. we can make educated guesses, but we'll never exactly what the authors meant by some things. so with new research and more information, more (and hopefully better) idiomatic translations will come out. the literal translations only need to change with the english language.the other factor that makes the bible in particular different is exactly how compatible hebrew is with english -- which is something i was really suprised to learn when i began studying hebrew. it is nowhere near as wholly different as i expected it to be. and it seems to me the reason for this is because, ironically, of the bible. one of the single most influential works in early modern english is the king james bible -- a literal translation of a hebrew document. and so some very weird hebrew idioms have worked their way into the english language over the last 400 years.those two factors balance the literal v. idiomatic debate a little, though i still personally feel that idiomatic translations are better for the average reader.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo, addition.

---

The reason is for clarity. The King James is written in old English amd hardly anyone speaks this way any longer. It tends to be difficult for younger people to read it. So, the NIV or the New KJ offers a more present-day vernacular so as to allow the reader the most clarity. Changing 'thou' to 'you' does not change the meaning portrayed in the original Scripture. For some bosses its all about connections and not about experience. But yes, these attributes are what typifies what a boss is. I disagree. I think its just recognizing that God bestows certain qualitative personalities and physical and mental attributes that are better suited for certain situations. For instance: Why is are the sexes separated in sports? Why is there women's basketball and women's tennis? Why not just tennis or just basketball. Its probably because there really is a disparity between men and women physically. This doesn't mean that all women are incapable of playing sports beter than men. Not at all. Its just saying that on average, men are built differently than women. Its true. If it weren't then we'd have no basis for distinguishing between men and women. We'd all be one lump of androgenous flesh if it were any other way.Having said that, women obviously excel in some areas where men just aren't as good, by nature, in certain aspects. We don't know why exactly, but women are just more verbal than men and they tend to score higher on tests than men in this area. Its just the way it is. Well, by the home, I meant the family. Matters of the physical 'home' have been traditionally overseen by women, and their attention to detail has allowed for them to excel in superiority. Females are typically more attentive to the needs of others, whereas men tend to be a bit more oblivious to that. However, men tend to be a bit more pragmatic on monetary matters. They tend not to inject as much emotion into critical matters as women. And again, this isn't the case for every home or for every person. I think the message is that its ideal this way whenever possible. When you're on a date, who usually picks up the tab? When you are on a date, who opens the cardoor for the other person? When you are on a date who typically drives their own vehicle and basically chauffeurs their date? Men and women naturally fall into these roles. Yes, I believe that society has alot to do with establishing these roles and perpetuating them. I also believe, however, that these are natural inclinations that should not be dismissed. You can look at this from an anthropological standpoint. According to evolutionary anthropological history of mankind, males were the hunters and females were the gatherers. Even in the animal kingdom, males tend to rule the roost. Thats just the way nature tends to sort things out. I don't know what more I can say about it, other than I believe the Biblical perspective to correct in its assessment. It says it in the verse I provided. There are other verses in the Bible that speak about it. I found a great article that elucidates the point of mutual submission.

---

"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

Here you're projecting your "politically correct" beliefs onto the bible.

---

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

halfway right. Nobody speaks old english. very few understand the language. but something tells me you meant to write modern english.you see, old english was spoken before 1066--When William of Normandy became William the Conqeuror. Then, it became middle english that was spoken--a mixture of french and english. And then, somewhere about the 1400s (I think) it transitioned to modern english.and trust me--anyone speaking today can easily understand even the modern english of shakespeare--it's not too different from what we speak.for example:
the lord's prayer
Fæder ure u e eart on heofonum; [59k] Father our thou that art in heavens
Si in nama gehalgod [44k] be thy name hallowed
to becume in rice [37k] come thy kingdom
gewure in willa [43k] be-done thy will
on eoran swa swa on heofonum. [53k] on earth as in heavens
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg [68k] our daily bread give us today
and forgyf us ure gyltas [55k] and forgive us our sins
swa swa we forgyfa urum gyltendum [65k] as we forgive those-who-have-sinned-against-us
and ne gelæd u us on costnunge [57k] and not lead thou us into temptation
ac alys us of yfele solice [69k] but deliver us from evil. truly.
Lord's Prayer, with Old English AudioMiddle English--Canterbury Tales
Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his half cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages),
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
I Think it's got an audio cliphave fun.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences