What's the Difference Between a Translation and a Version

[The Grand Nudger]

The difference resides in the place your uncle realizes that he cannot maintain his ridiculous beliefs..even to himself, without manufacturing such a difference, in the first place. Artificial distinction, convenient, and conforming to the conclusion he wishes to reach.

[Rhondazvous]

The difference resides in the place your uncle realizes that he cannot maintain his ridiculous beliefs..even to himself, without manufacturing such a difference, in the first place.  Artificial distinction, convenient, and conforming to the conclusion he wishes to reach.

I looked up the phrase "hit the nail on the head" in Wikipedia and they had your picture.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Even a small change can drastically change the "basic idea.  Take the omission of a comma.

Paint the care red.
as opposed to
Paint the car, Red.

The differences in the various versions of the Bible do not all have the same idea. The protestant Bible doesn't have the Apocrypha, while the Catholic Bible does.

And that's just in the same language. Imagine the havoc one small change can make when translating between languages.  And we're not just talking different languages, Hebrew and English are in entirely different  linguistic families.

My uncle told me that the translation he wanted me to read was clearer.  Isn't that what a version does? I don't think it's possible to have a pure verbatim translation without doing some editing, deciding which words to use. Words that may have the same denotation may have quite divergent connotations.  Can a translator make such choices without reference to his personal beliefs or those of his denomination?  I doubt it very seriously.  

It always pays to remember that the Bible is a fairly recent book.  In fact it's one of the earliest real books.  But even so it's only been in its current format for only a few hundred years.  The basic ideas are consistent in all versions and translations.  

[Rhondazvous]

Your uncle has been sold a bill of goods.

http://www.muslimhope.com/QuranVariants.htm

Two common misconceptions taught by some is that one proof of the Qur’an being from Allah is that there are no manuscript variations, and the Qur’an today is identical to the Qur’an just after Mohammed.


However, a manuscript was discovered in Samarkand, and over 15,000 pages of old Koran text were discovered in Yemen. According to an article by in the Jan. 1999 Atlantic Monthly (p.43-56)
"Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God."
The point of this paper is not to try to say which variants are correct; it is simply to show that variants exist, and these cannot be swept under the rug.

I'm sure he was a willing purchaser.

Oh yeah, he has his own store where he sells his own weird cross between orthodox Islam and the NOI.

Based on my own readings, Arabic orthography during the time of Muhammad was still inchoate. The diacritical dots that distinguish one letter from another weren't added until decades after Muhammad died.The guys who added the dots did so at their own discretion. Muhammad was supposed to have been illiterate, so when he dictated the Quran to his companions, he basically had to take their word for it that what they wrote was identical to what he said.

I wrote a paper about this I could share in the Islamic forum. I haven't been over there. I guess as long as I don't give out my address it will be safe.

[Brian37]

The title of the thread is misleading. Does not matter which you argue, still would not make a god real or magic real. It's like arguing which is more real the first Harry Potter book or the movie version of the book. Would it make it true boys could fly around on brooms if it was dubbed in Arabic or Japanese?

It's like asking who is more real Dark Vader or Captain Kirk?

---

Even a small change can drastically change the "basic idea.  Take the omission of a comma.

Paint the care red.
as opposed to
Paint the car, Red.

The differences in the various versions of the Bible do not all have the same idea. The protestant Bible doesn't have the Apocrypha, while the Catholic Bible does.

And that's just in the same language. Imagine the havoc one small change can make when translating between languages.  And we're not just talking different languages, Hebrew and English are in entirely different  linguistic families.

My uncle told me that the translation he wanted me to read was clearer.  Isn't that what a version does? I don't think it's possible to have a pure verbatim translation without doing some editing, deciding which words to use. Words that may have the same denotation may have quite divergent connotations.  Can a translator make such choices without reference to his personal beliefs or those of his denomination?  I doubt it very seriously.  

It always pays to remember that the Bible is a fairly recent book.  In fact it's one of the earliest real books.  But even so it's only been in its current format for only a few hundred years.  The basic ideas are consistent in all versions and translations.  

If by consistently wrong yes. But no it is hardly consistent. The NT and OT constantly contradict each other and not even the stories of the begats match or his death for that matter. Not to mention all the scientific absurdities claimed by that comic book.

It is always important to remember that holy books are reflections of the follower's desires. Mormonism and Scientology are also new as well. Doesn't matter how young or old a holy book or writing is, they are all still man made human inventions and they do not replace science nor can the be even called objective history books.

[Rhondazvous]

The title of the thread is misleading. Does not matter which you argue, still would not make a god real or magic real. It's like arguing which is more real the first Harry Potter book or the movie version of the book. Would it make it true boys could fly around on brooms if it was dubbed in Arabic or Japanese?

It's like asking who is more real Dark Vader or Captain Kirk?

 I understand what you said and do not disagree on any point, but just don't know what that has to do with the title or the points we've been making in this thread.

---

[vorlon13]

The title of the thread is misleading. Does not matter which you argue, still would not make a god real or magic real. It's like arguing which is more real the first Harry Potter book or the movie version of the book. Would it make it true boys could fly around on brooms if it was dubbed in Arabic or Japanese?

It's like asking who is more real Dark Vader or Captain Kirk?

---

It always pays to remember that the Bible is a fairly recent book.  In fact it's one of the earliest real books.  But even so it's only been in its current format for only a few hundred years.  The basic ideas are consistent in all versions and translations.  

If by consistently wrong yes. But no it is hardly consistent. The NT and OT constantly contradict each other and not even the stories of the begats match or his death for that matter. Not to mention all the scientific absurdities claimed by that comic book.

It is always important to remember that holy books are reflections of the follower's desires. Mormonism and Scientology are also new as well. Doesn't matter how young or old a holy book or writing is, they are all still man made human inventions and they do not replace science nor can the be even called objective history books.

And starting with Joe Smith himself, and all in the Mormon hierarchy ever since, the 'drift rate' of the Book of Mormon and all the revelations is orders of magnitude larger than in mainstream Bible-ism.  Dead Sea scrolls have recognizable versions of most of the OT books, should the BoM and their revelations continue to mutate at the same rate for another 1850 years, they will be TOTALLY unrecognizable from what we have preserved from the 1830s.

Additionally, the early Mormons were not shy in accusing the Catholics in particular that their predecessors in the early years of that church freely corrupted all of the Bible.  That there is any concurrence with the DSS and the current Bible (in most all its forms except the Joe Smith Revised version, tee hee) is another in an VERY, VERY long list of failed predictions coming from the Mormon church.



Note:

I'm aware I bring up the Mormons frequently, as it turns out, the Mormons have FUCKED virtually everything doctrinaire they've ever come up with, hence their being frequently cited.  I'd venture to say, if the past is prologue, the Mormons are continuing to this day to fuck up far faster than I or even an army of me could ever keep up with.

[Lek]

I find that among christians the two terms are used interchangeably.  One problem is that the for some Hebrew and Greek words there is no corresponding English word.  So the translator needs to look at the context, or whatever they rely on, to show a similar meaning in English for a certain thought.  Also there many words that have more than one meaning, in which case they have to choose which meaning is applicable.  Young earth creationists and old earth creationists are always arguing over the meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" which can mean a 24-hour day, but can also mean a long undefined period of time; thus having a great effect on whether or not Genesis 1-2, took place over 6 days or billions of years.  

We keep getting new translations, or versions, as we discover more manuscripts.  The newer versions like the NIV and ESV are based on older manuscripts that have been discovered since the writing of translations such as the King James version.  Of course, there's good ole capitalism.  Publishing companies make money when they publish a new translation that becomes popular.  The real truth, as far as I'm concerned, that they all teach the necessary tenets of christianity. After the dead sea scrolls were discovered in 1946, it was found that the scriptures have been preserved remarkably well.

[vorlon13]

Additionally, considering your typical christer in the street (99.9%) is going to cherry pick scriptures to observe and ignore from whatever you call a version or a translation, we are somewhat debating a moot point here.

And that cherry picking of scriptures will be governed entirely by what they feel is convenient and what isn't regardless of whatever degree of fundamentalism they profess.

I almost don't want to refer to such a claptrap mess as a 'religion' any more. Might be a rare concurrence between me and The Jesus there.

Go figure . . .

[The Grand Nudger]

thus having a great effect on whether or not Genesis 1-2, took place 

-had the debate between them ended right there...rather than wondering about what the appropriate frame of time would be, perhaps they wouldn't be morons? Or maybe that goes the other way around?