Another question for people of the Jewish faith?

Question

I've heard from Jewish people that Christians mistranlate the Torah. is it mistranslation if the translation has foot notes stating that there are differant meanings for words from text written in differant languages like hebrew, aramaic, greek, masoretic, and samaritan? Also are there hebrew words that have more then one meaning? And if so how and who decides what translation these words will be used as in the Torah?

Answer 1

The rabbi's think that it is their place to do so...it is not, however.

The Bible interprets itself without the aid of rabbis or priests...

Qaraite Jew who belives in Jesus...

Answer 2

The Torah was written in classic Hebrew - just as the Qur'an was written in classic Arabic. Both Hebrew and Arabic, as well as Aramaic, are semitic languages. This means that the words are built around consonants, and that symbols under or above the letters, denote a vowel.

The nature of these languages is that there is always a root to every word, consisting of most of the time three vowels. From these three letters, many new words evolve, and can also have a new meaning. Example:

HEBREW:
Talmid = student (root LMD; LaMaD)
Lilmod = read (root LMD)
Melamed = (he) is reading (root LMD)

Kitab = book (root KaTaBa)
Mäktaba = book shop (root KTB)

Since we are concentrating on Hebrew here, I will give an example that will perhaps shed some light on why the translation of the Torah - as well as the Qur'an - can never substitute the original Hebrew or Arabic:

Jewish Law is called "Halakha". This often translates into "The Path" (Ha = The, Lakha = Path). However, may meanings are imbedded into the Hebrew word, many nuances that help us understand the exact meaning of the word:

Lakha is a branch out of the root D R KH (darakh) (interestingly enough, in Arabic the same word is D R Q (daraqa) which in turn becomes Derech; the word for road.

However, lakha is also (Israeli readers, please correct me if I am wrong here!) the past tense of the word "Lalekh" which means "to walk". So if one knows one's Hebrew, and also one's Jewish philosophy, then the real meaning of the word "Halakha", is "the road which one has been asked to walk on"

These nuances disappear in translations. Since obviously, simply saying "The Path" is much easier.

This goes for all of the words in both Hebrew and Arabic. That is why the Old Testament cannot be held to be the original version of the Torah.

It perplexes me why Christians don't want to use the original Hebrew text of the Torah (which is the Old Testament, give or take a few books). If I were Christian, I would for sure want both the Old and the New Testament in their original state, and I would do my utmost to learn all languages of these two Messages in order to truly understand the message.

Answer 3

There are versions of the Torah where there is definitely some mistranslating going on. It is somewhat of a complicated matter to decide what has gone on in each of the cases of mistranslation. I cannot really give a blanket statement, because each case is unique.

Hebrew, like all languages, does have some words that have more than one meaning. Furthermore, Hebrew grammar is often ambiguous. The word "is" is rarely used, for example. In a case where a word has more than one meaning, context will usually tell you which way is correct.

The Masoretic text is used by Christians as well as Jews. This comes from the word "Masorah" meaning "tradition." It is the proper way to read the text, based on a long-standing tradition. Hebrew has consonants, but no vowels (except in a few cases). So, the word for door, delet, would be spelled dlt. So how do you know it's "delet" and not "Dolet" or "dalat" or any other various combination? Context can usually tell you, but often, we must rely on tradition. The Masoretic text is the Hebrew words with vowel sounds added in.

Let me give a known example of what I consider a mistranslation. There is a psalm (I think it is Psalm 22) where many Christian Bibles translate it as "they pierced my hands and my feet." Christians say this refers to Jesus being crucified. However, the word "pierced" occurs nowhere at all in that text. The word that they translate as pierced is actually ka'ari, (if I remember correctly) which means like a lion. So the proper translation is "they were at my hands and feet like a lion."

What is very telling is that the Christian translators translate all other occurrences of the Hebrew word for Lion as Lion, EXCEPT in Psalm 22. But in that place only, they suddenly translate it as "pierced." There is really no reason for that except that they are trying to make it sound like it's about Jesus, when in the original, it does not sound so much like that at all.

One of the problems is that sometimes, you are reading an "Interpretation" instead of a "Translation." The difference is, a translation is supposed to tell you exactly what the original SAYS. Whereas an Interpretation tells you what it MEANS (or what the interpreter THINKS it means). So, perhaps the interpreter of Psalm 22 took liberties with the verse, because he felt that even though it SAYS "like a lion" it really MEANT "pierced." I think that is really stretching the meaning of the verse, but that's just my opinion.

If you do not speak Hebrew, it is useful to have a Strong's Concordance with a Hebrew lexicon or dictionary. (make sure it's a Biblical Hebrew dictionary, not Modern). You can get Strong's Concordance with Vine's, and have all you need in one volume.

This way, you can look up what the words mean for yourself, if there is any question.

Otherwise, it is advisable to compare more than one translation, to get a feel for what the original might actually say.

I recommend the Jewish Publication Society, and the New Revised Standard Versions. I find them to be the most accurate.

Answer 4

The Torah is written in the Hebrew language.

In a Christian version of the Bible, there are many places where the Hebrew is mistranslated, often purposely, to make a passage sound like it might refer to Jesus.

See here for an example:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/like-a-lion.html

Answer 5

A mistraslation is a mistranlation when the word used in the translated to language (in our case, English) does not accurately convey the correct meaning of the word in the original (which is Hebrew).
Stating what a word's meaning are in different languages may be of interest to a linguist and/or historian but seems to me a lame justification as to why the translators decided to translate it differently. (In other words it sounds like they're saying: "Our translation of this Hebrew word is correct since the same/similar word use in language X is ...."). What matters is what the Hebrew word was and what it means.
As to the question about the possibility of the same Hebrew word having two different meanings, I would say basically yes, if by different meanings you mean "if used in context X it means this, but used in context Y it means that".
That being the case, one has to therefore understand the basic meaning of a word plus the context it is used in in order to render an accurate translation.
Part of the problem here that you allude to is when som,e take their basic theology and use that as a basis for a translation instead of what the word actually means.
So, to give the classic example: The KJV (thats the King James Version translation of the Bible) translates the word "almah" as "virgin" primarily because of the Christological belief in the virgin birth and the reference to Isaiah 7:14.
However, "alma" does not mean virgin as we understand it, it means "young woman" or "maiden".

Answer 6

There have been hundreds of translations of the Torahh. some translatons were deliberatly mistranslated so as to make Jesus look good, some were complete accidents with no bad intentions. Even english translations done by different Jewish groups are different from each other. Basically each respective synagouge or church chooses for itself which translation they feel is right for them. Usually it is not hard to figure out what side of the street the translaters live on if you get my meaning.

I want to emphasize two key points, 1) ther definetly were deliberate attempts by christian groups to make poor translatons sound like they rfered to Jesus,

2) translating from one language to another is always difficult no matter what and there will always be bias even if the best intentions.

Answer 7

when jews say that christian bibles mistranslate the torah, we aren't talking about normal translation problems that naturally arise when trying to translate something from one language to another. we are talking about deliberate mistranslations which can't be justified by mere confusion, and are simply mistranslated to put a christian spin in the jewish scriptures, ie the infamous "piercing psalm" which was clearly deliberately mistranslated since the translator got the translation correct for the same hebrew words in other places of the exact same chapter. jewish translations to english aren't word for word correct either - its impossible. this is the reason jewish children are educated in the hebrew language - so that they don't have to rely on translations.

Answer 8

You will not find a Jewish faith in the Bible just as you will not find Christianity in the Gospels nor in the Old Testament, so from where does this Jewish faith and/or Judaism come?

The Quran solves the problem or puzzle because you wont find Christianity or Judaism in the Quran. which is Genuine Scripture, but the Quran tells you that Christ was not crucified and that all that comes with this fabrication of the crucifixion are a matter of conjecture and lies, which includes the Bible and Christianity and Jews and Jewish faith that Christians love to talk about.

Quran claims to be a confirmation of all Scripture that came before it and, true to it's Word, the Quran delivers a confession from the Bible that the crucifixion and all that comes with it are indeed lies and conjecture and the Bible goes on to expose the beautifully planned and executed escape from crucifixion by the Messiah and the curse that is today on the Biblical Jews from the tongue of Christ (John 8:44) and from Deuteronomy 21:23.

Jews were one tribe of twelve that were all Muslims after Ibraheem (Abraham), but for the trick of the crucifixion and the Bible and Jesus, they are identified as Jews in order to cover up for the Sadducees who were those who sought to assassinate Christ.

Jews are as much a trick as Jesus and Christianity and the Bible.

To tamper with Scripture is indeed futile for between the lies and between the lines remain the truth about the Hoax of the Crucifixion.

Answer 9

The Torah is in Hebrew, so it's not Christians that are translating it wrong, it's people who speak English or whatever language they're translating to.

Answer 10

Tyrone,
You are correct that certain words may have more than one meaning. However, oftentimes christians clearly mistranslate. They offer translations which are in no way correct.
e.g. "alma" = virgin (isa 7:14)
ka'ari = pierced (psalm 22:16)

Those simply don't mean those things at all.

cheerio

Answer 11

In theory, it's impossible to pefectly translate a document as long and diverse as the Torah into another language, using another alphabet.