Seriously now, in some cases you have an interpreted translation, of an interpreted translation, of an interpr

Question

eted translation of an interpreted story passed down through generations of interpreted story telling which might be symbolic or poetic or just a parable or even somebody's dream. Then YOU have to interpret THAT into both or either ancient and modern context.
If you read this question to the end and can honestly answer... I'm sure somebody will... "what was the question?" ... how on EARTH are you gonna get the end product of all those interpretations in any perspective whatsoever? PLEASE don't say with the help of the Holy Spirit as He has a miserable record, even inciting some to torture heretics and unbelievers and 'witches'.

Yea, yea, the Holy Ghost didn't do that .. they just thought he did.

Answer 1

Something is Wrong with You!

Answer 2

you've already decided against an answer before we gave it. How open minded is that? The Jewish scribes did an amazing job of keeping the texts accurate. They are not perfect, there are a few copyist errors. One reason for this is that not all Rabbis could interpret scripture. Some were only allowed to recite and copy it. By limiting the # of men who could interpret scripture, they kept it very true to it's origins. When the scripture were later translated into Greek and the into Latin, it was usually done in a very slow methodical manner. No one that I know of has claimed that these translations were divinely inspired. Only that they original scripture was. More recently, there have been many efforts to make the bible easier to read. Some of these have not had the same strict standards as previous translations. The only way to determine what the bible truly says is to start with a pure motive. Skeptics often look for just the right translation to try and make a point. That is a dishonest strategy. In order to find the truth we must be willing to let the bible speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may. So far it has always worked out just fine.

Answer 3

Scripture scholars are very aware that there is no one definitive text. In fact they have classified families of sources, some more likely reliable, some less. But they compare them all. They even have rules for determining whether a passage is a mistake, a correction, an addition or the original wording. I'm talking about original language texts here.

As for translations, all languages have different syntaxes and idioms. A perfectly literal translation would be almost impossible to read. There HAS to be some interpretation just to get the ideas across. That's why it's good to consult more than one translation.

Having many interpretations is not a bad thing. It allows us to think more deeply about what each passage means, deciding for ourselves. The notion of an absolute, indisputable way to understand the Bible is an impractical fantasy. The goal should not be literalness but consistency.

Answer 4

The one thing that you forget is that we have copious manuscripts that have a high degree of unanimity with each other, and these in the original, not translated languages.

Allow me to show you. First, let's look at the Old Testament. The King James Bible's translators had a Hebrew manuscript that had been written in the 9th century A.D. This manuscript is called the Masoretic Text. It was this text that the King James translators relied on in their production of an English language Old Testament.

In 1947, an Arab shepherd boy was throwing rocks into a cave in the region of Qumran, near the Dead Sea in Jordan. He heard the shattering of pottery, and went to investigate. What he discovered was pottery that contained scrolls of Scripture. These scrolls contained every book of the Old Testament except Esther. These have been dated to ca. 150 B.C.

Bible translators have studied these scrolls ever since. They have been worked on by those who know ancient Hebrew. What they discovered was that these Dead Sea Scrolls compared very favorably with the Masoretic Text. Even though there is 1000 years between the two, there are no significant differences between them, and none that do exist compromise the message.

They also compared very favorably with the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, which was the work of 70 Hebrew scholars, who wanted to give Greek speaking Jews a Bible in their heart language. The Septuagint had been translated in the 3rd to 1st century B.C.

Both of these ancient texts were available at the time of Christ, and He said this about them: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished." (Matthew 5:18)

Next, allow me to show you why the New Testament's history. There is no other body of work that has the numbers of early manuscripts available for translators to use than the New Testament. The New Testament was first written in Greek, and then translated into other languages, again, so people could have one in their heart language.

There are 24,000 manuscripts available for the New Testament, written in five languages. One is a fragment of the Gospel of John, chapter 18, dated to a generation of the original. And that was found hundreds of miles away from where John ministered. He had lived in Ephesus, and this fragment was found in Egypt.

Even without this overwhelming abundance of manuscripts, a nearly complete New Testament could be made from extra-biblical sources, such as letters from the early church, sermons, lectionaries, and the like.

We have these originals available so that people like you cannot come and say what it is you are saying in this question, and have any credibility. God has protected His Word, even though mankind has done their worst to destroy it. I guess when Jesus said what He said earlier in my response, He meant it.

Answer 5

Not true. All modern Bible translations are made from the most ancient manuscripts availible. And the historical record shows that while Catholic belief has matured over the past 2000 years it has not changed. All the basic elements of Catholicism can be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers who lived in the first through fifth centuries.

Answer 6

Yes you are right in some aspects . the originals were keep in poor shape after the story was put to writing from oral traditions handed down . but they had better more well trained memories than we do as that was the only means of passing the Tales from one person to another.Until an alphabet was created and a means of writing it down.
A faded or missing letter could change the whole meaning of a verse.
The translations went from Jewish(the original dialect is no longer in use to Greek and Latin. If there were missing parts the translator put in what they thought should be there.
To Chris : no the King James Version does not follow the original word for word as King James had the Bible verses Changed from the original because the bishops would not let him do what he wanted as it violated the original meanings and tied his hands.

Answer 7

If you are speaking of the Bible, you don't have the facts. There are Bibles that have the original Hebrew and the original Greek txts alongside of an English version. I have both.

King James version is so close to the original texts, it isn't funny.

Answer 8

copy your facts from references one by one and analyze which are which.

Answer 9

It's open for interpretation....

;)

Answer 10

wow. you're confused.