12-04-2005 02:52									#121
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom I don't have to prove the N.I.V. 's bias one way or another: I have only to show my point, that a translator changes a text when putting it into another language. They may do so because there is a specific term that doesn't translate too easily (Weltanschauung, elan, chutzpah, manana) because there is a concept not fully understood, or non-existent in the language/culture the text is being put into, or because of their particular bias, be it sectarian or political, and so on. I fail to see what's ecumenical about your use of the N.I.V.- Roman Catholicism may be the latest sect you've joined, but your use of a particular version of the Bible is your choice, presumably because it suits your viewpoints. English Presbyterians or Scots Calvinists may quote from the Authorized King James Version rather than the Geneva Bible, but it makes them no more ecumenical than me- it could simply be they recognise good prose when they see it. I know that many evangelicals favour the N.I.V and many don't; I'm also aware that there have been (and presumably will be) many translations of the Bible into English and other languages, and that differing Christian sects prefer their interpretations and their translations to others. Presumably you don't favour the Quakers' injunction against oath-taking- for which they cite Biblical justification. Or the Jehovah's Witnesses' injunctions against celebrating birthdays, Christmas or the transfusion of whole blood- for which again they cite Biblical precedent. With regard to your prose style- snippy comments about humility don't enter into it- I've studied the English language and literature in English and thought I'd just give you the benefit of my experience.

there are actually many different types of translations, paraphrases and all sorts of other types and methods to get the results in english that we get today

a lot of bibles are just changes made to the king james

there was a literalness chart I saw a decade or so ago, on it it had bibles that tried to literally write word for word from some original on one end, and bibles that were translated paraphrases on the other

the NIV is more paraphrased than most btw, but when you get far towards the literal side you get ones that aren't very readable or that arguable has meaning lost by not including context

I would guess the very best thing to do (if you were really interested) would be to learn greek and latin (and hebrew) and read all the copies that bible translators base there work on

of course, as you pointed out, there is still going to be some big interpretation going on, but at least that will mostly be your own (it would of course be a lot better if you were a native speaker of the languages in question)

Jon Miller
(I beleive that there are three very old copies of the NT that are second century or so that most translators use today, one is in Rome, one is in England, and one is somewhere elese?)

	12-04-2005 02:53									#122
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse my Aramaic and Hebrew is a bit rusty

my hebrew is not too bad - reading the Taanach in Hebrew with line by line translation can be pretty illuminating. I know a lot less Aramaic, but are we discussing Talmud here? If anyone is interested in learning gemorrah here, id be interested in joining in.

	12-04-2005 02:56									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

one big problem with the bible in translation is some words don't have clear equivalents in other languages

	12-04-2005 02:58									#124
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I agree

I know that some are up in arms about the NIV because one of the translators was a lesbian

Jon Miller

	12-04-2005 02:58									#125
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom You also ignored the point that a text which is written in a particular time and a particular context is not for all time when it deals with changing human societies and mores. If you want it to apply to you and your lifestyle, fine. But don't use it to judge others, and don't act as though your version is the sole version or necessarily a 'correct' version.

thats a hard one. Forex, theres Jewish law (not sure the biblical basis off the top of my head) that says a married woman must wear her hair modestly. In Talmudic times this meant keeping her hair covered. ultraorthodox jews insist it must still be covered - many modern Orthodox Jews insist hair covering is a historically dependent interpretation of modesty - IE in THAT era a modest approach to hair was to cover it - while today all thats required is a generally kempt (?) look. But the PRINCIPLE remains the same.

	12-04-2005 02:59									#126
	Suffering from ads?

it was a decade ago

so I thin it was something like this

http://www.zondervanbibles.com/translations.htm

Jon Miller

	12-04-2005 03:04									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

For example - in the very second word of the bible.

Barah - translated as creates. IIUC the word barah in the bible is ONLY used for a divine action - man "Oseh" makes, but G-d Barah. The English creates can apply to man or to G-d. So some of the mystery of "barah" is lost.


Or take Tohu ve Bohu. Unformed and Void. Well Tohu and bohu dont necessarily mean that. IIUC theyre not used anywhere else in the bible - Rabbinic commentators treat them as substances - G-d made the world from stuff called tohu and bohu.

Or connotations - Adam - Adamah (soil) adom (red) Edom (a land of reddish mountains) Esau is called Edom (he is the progenitor of the Edomites) and in rabbinic texts Edom means Rome, or gentiles in general.

	12-04-2005 03:08									#128
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

connotations - Psalms in Hebrew Tehillim - related Hallel - to praise - Halleluyah. Lost in the english psalms.

	12-04-2005 03:10									#129
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

connotations - kaddosh - Holy. Set apart. Kiddushin - marriage.

	12-04-2005 03:10									#130
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

BTW

I have New Revised Standard, Living Bible, New Internation Version, King James, and New King James (I think) versions

I generally read NRSV

Jon Miller

	12-04-2005 03:11									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

connotations - Ezekial is often called "ben adam" son of man - OR son of Adam (IE human being, everyman)

	12-04-2005 03:15									#132
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ezekial, yes, now there is a treasure...

	12-04-2005 03:57									#133
	Remove this text

Regardless of the versions, I think we should all applaud the effort to review the origins of basic doctrines on sex. The Church's teachings, while longstanding, are not clearly supported in the text.

Just for example, why does the Church make distinctions between sex by a married man and an unmarried man with a harlot?

	12-04-2005 04:27									#134
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse They are called "The Aprocrypha" or Deuterocanonical texts - the books of Tobit, Judith, Macabees, some other books and additions to other books. Interestingly they were included in the original King James bible of 1611. My bible is an ecumenical version approved by both the catholic church and the protestant national council of the churches of Christ, USA. It was the first ever bible to be so approved

The King James Version? Jeeez I'm not sure that I'm familiar with that one?

	13-04-2005 19:49									#135
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think I'm beginning to understand this subject better within the context of the bible: The very first time I had sex - it was not a sin. I became married to that girl in Gods eyes. Each subsequent time I had sex in my life was an act of adultery against that very first girl..

	13-04-2005 19:54									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Are you sure she wants to stop because of religious beliefs? It is possible she just isn't as in to you as she used to be. Nothing personal but I wanted to explore all options.

That's part of it, I guess. She feels extremely guilty about the sex thing. She wants a guy who will lead her spiritually - not hold her back. I found out on Sunday that there were other issues she had with my behavior. So we ended our two-year relationship.

	13-04-2005 19:56									#137
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse considering he seems to be a complete arsehole that seems quite likely

I'll accept that label. Take it from a former nice guy, though - "arseholes" get laid a lot more than nice guys...

	14-04-2005 00:55									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by bfg9000 I think I'm beginning to understand this subject better within the context of the bible: The very first time I had sex - it was not a sin. I became married to that girl in Gods eyes. Each subsequent time I had sex in my life was an act of adultery against that very first girl..

Sound right and wrong at the same time. Makes the whole concept of premarital sex being sin ludicrous, which is why I think the only thing condemned by Jesus, consistent with the Ten Commandments, is adultery. Sex with Harlots is mentioned primarily because in those days sex with prostitutes was not considered adultery. (I know I have mentioned this point many times in this thread, but no one seems to be able to analyze this issue by placing it in context of the age.)

	14-04-2005 02:59									#139
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

i dont get that how sex with a prostuitute isnt adultry. If ur married i dont care if its adam or eve you have sex with them thats adultry Because the sex isnt with your wife.

	14-04-2005 06:18									#140
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Mrs. T, under Roman Law, sex with a prostitute was not adultery. Once you understand this, a lot of what Jesus and Paul were saying becomes clear. It was no accident that the word "porneia" was used because that word means "sex with a harlot."

	14-04-2005 06:31									#141
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Mrs. T, under Roman Law, sex with a prostitute was not adultery. Once you understand this, a lot of what Jesus and Paul were saying becomes clear. It was no accident that the word "porneia" was used because that word means "sex with a harlot."

I dont give a rats ass what the bible says its still adultry.
The bible is up for interpetion and mostly by men. I dont give a **** what most men think. am i to agree what the men think like stuff like im gonna go screw a harlot but im not cheating on my wife crap. i beleive its all bullshit

	14-04-2005 06:46									#142
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski I dont give a rats ass what the bible says its still adultry. The bible is up for interpetion and mostly by men. I dont give a **** what most men think. am i to agree what the men think like stuff like im gonna go screw a harlot but im not cheating on my wife crap. i beleive its all bullshit

Mrs. T, I agree, of course. But you still have to consider the context of the time. Married men had been patronizing prostitutes from time immemorial. It was a long established pratice and it was legal under the law.

I suspect that the early church had some difficulty in changing the customary practices of its members and that is the reason for the epistles of St. Paul telling the Greeks that sex with prostitutes was a sin.

	14-04-2005 06:48									#143
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

BTW, I asked St. Marcus how married women in Holland felt about their husbands patronizing prostitutes after that profession was legalized there. He said that the women continued to believe that it was cheating.

	14-04-2005 07:12									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

it is cheating. i dont care how anyone puts it. the bible has been interperted by men so the women have to belive what they have interperted said happened.
if your having sex with somebody other then your spouse it is cheating.

	14-04-2005 22:28									#145
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski it is cheating. i dont care how anyone puts it. the bible has been interperted by men so the women have to belive what they have interperted said happened. if your having sex with somebody other then your spouse it is cheating.

I think you got it backwards. In the old days, woman had virtually no rights at all. There was a double-standard. Women could not have affairs without committing adultery. Neither could men with so-called "good" girls; but they could visit prostitutes and perhaps have male lovers (Greece) without committing adultery. What St. Paul was trying to do was to change this so that men could not have extra-marital sex of any type. This obviously was pro-woman and pro-family.

You may be surprised also that women could not get married for love. They had to marry the person their parents chose. This was changed during the reign of Justinian in the early 500's at the behest of Theodora, Justinians wife who grew up in poverty and became an actress (a very low profession for women) before meeting and then marrying Justinian.

It was also at this time they changed the laws that would allow a widow to have custody of her own kids. Again, this was Theodora's doing as her own mother could not have legal custody of her when her father died.

But that was 500 years after the period of time of the New Testament. Imagine the status of women then. The had no status and no rights at all.

	15-04-2005 01:12									#146
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by bfg9000 I think I'm beginning to understand this subject better within the context of the bible: The very first time I had sex - it was not a sin. I became married to that girl in Gods eyes. Each subsequent time I had sex in my life was an act of adultery against that very first girl..

er, no.