Biblical instructions for translation?

As I've read through many of the topics on these forums, especially Faith & Belief and The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy, I've noticed much debate about the different translations of the Bible. I was wondering if the Bible itself speaks to this subject? Does it give any sort of direction on how it's passages should be translated between the various languages of the world?Languages have emerged, died and changed since much of the Bible was written. I would guess than many of us don't speak a language closely related to Hebrew or Greek. Is there anything in it's books that suggest how to keep it's original meanings intact through the generations? If the Bible is divinely inspired and supposed to speak to people across several millennium there should be strong guidelines for potential translations.Just Wondering
PM1K

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi Pm. Welcome to town! As a Biblical fundamentalist who hold to the fundamentals of those scriptures, I believe the Bible is like any manual or textbook. The closer to you keep to what is written the more precise you will be in the implementation of it in practice and understanding. I regard the handling and translation of the Bible with the warning of the verses 18 and 19 of the last chapter of the Bible which state that a curse from God will be upon any who either diminish or add to what is written. Since it is written in the book of Revelation, some would say it applies to only that book, but I think not. It is a clear indication of how God views the handling of his words and imo, significant that it is in the last words of the entire book.Also in the first chapter of Revelation, verse 3 we read a blessing on those who read, hear and keep the words written in the book. There are other scriptures, both in the OT and NT that imply the same message concerning the handling of scripture.Suppose that the aircraft mechanic decides to render his own private thinking in what the training manual states and implements his own ideas into practice as a mechanic. Not good! The same goes with the Bible. Unless the text indicates otherwise, the text of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts should be kept in both interpretation and translation of scripture. The same rule would apply to all languages. The words nearest to the most reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in any given language should be implemented in originating a text. Then each reader (not the translator) do the interpreting of those words. This way you have a sound foundational basis to work from and the original message is not lost in time.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Isn't that how training manuals get written, though?In fact don't we consider it the mark of an expert mechanic - or an expert in any field - when they throw away the book and rely on what they've learned on the job?Julia Child isn't a great cook because she reads cookbooks. She's a great cook because she knows when to put the cookbook away.I don't know how this relates to the Bible - well, actually I have some suspicions - but it's certainly the case that in almost no field are the experts the people who always do it by the book. In fact always going by the book is usually a sign that you're dealing with a sub-par mechanic.

Not making additions or subtractions, as mandated in Revelation, can definitely be seen as a good baseline for future translators. These verses, however, are more of a precaution than a guideline. Are there any verses that address methods for translating as you mention it? Verses to test reliability of said manuscripts?I'm no etymologist and am unsure of how the nearest words would be determined. Do we have an ancient equalivent to Websters? Any good sites that explain this process?thanx
PM1K

No. Not when you're liable for the possible death of others. The mechanic goes by the book and if he/she thinks differently, he/she may make suggestions for changing the manual, but he or she had better go by the book which has been tested and tried. CRASH frog you can go with the inovative self sufficient relativist, but I'll fly with the objective fundies who go by the book. With Julia, we're talking taste and health, but with mechanics and the Bible, we're talking life and death and the eternal destination of the soul. Imo, no room for guesswork, experimentation and personal relativism here.

I use language interlinear Hebrew and Greek to English texts for checking for acuracy of a translated text. No particular scripture comes to mind for translating guideline other than the admonition to keep what is written for the basis of determination of message. There is a scripture which states that no scripture of private interpretation and I take that to mean unless otherwise indicated, keep what is written. Of course, one can concoct all kinds of varied doctrines from isolated statements out of text and unfortunately that's done all the time.

depends on belief.for instance, under the strictist judaic sense, the talmud contains various laws on how a torah is to be copied in order to be seen as authentic. no letter may be changed, added, or deleted. and they do check it letter by letter. ...translations are right out.that reminds me. i was gonna see if i can find a hebrew class...

What doe she do, however, when a situation arises that's not in the book? At that point, who do you want working on your car? Well, imo, since no book of finite length could possibly hope to encompass the infinite variety of moral situations humans might find themselves in, there's simply no room for dogmatism, fundamentalism, and the abdication of personal moral reflection.I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-18-2004 03:29 PM

Appears that there are no guidelines, persay, in the Biblical books themselves, but did the early church set down any rules? In view of the "Great Commission", I would have thought translating God's Word would have been a very important issue. From a modern day perspective, it looks like a standard for translating would have been needed to keep different versions consistent. I would call it "quality control" today but I'm not sure what it might have been referred back then.What I'm basically interested what kind of correction system has been used through the development of the versions/translations of the Bible. Blame a Biblical "Question of the Day" calendar for my curiosity thanx
PM1K

I'm not at all familar with the Talmud. Any interesting sites to start learning about it?thanx
PM1K

Actually, one of the first directives that I'm aware of was when Constatine commissioned the 50 Bibles for the new churches in his new city. And there, IIRC, there was no mention of content at all but rather that they should look nice and be impressive.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The best bet is to contact a nearby Synagogue. The Rabbi will be able to point you towards many sources.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Seems that guideline has been upheld. Modern Bibles are very nice books (leather bound, gold edges, wonderful fonts, etc).PM1Kps: Does your user name refer to "Mason" or perhaps "Java"?

Hi, Arach., didn`t this letter count,etc. start with the Masoretes? Circa 7-9th centuries C.E.?
For nearly two(?)centuries, followers of the KJV kept the buzz-phrase of 'providential preservation', meaning they and only they had the correct translation. Not sure what heavenly fate awaited Westcott and Hort with their recension.