RE: What's the Difference Between a Translation and a Version
May 13, 2015 at 1:46 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2015 at 2:00 pm by 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?
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.
It's like asking who is more real Dark Vader or Captain Kirk?
(May 13, 2015 at 3:13 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:(May 12, 2015 at 8:08 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: 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.
