True, now think about the people who translated the religious texts and other works from ancient languages. Their education, passions and personal beliefs. Educated religious leaders know that . What was may not be what is. The intent quite likely remains but, not the actual word.
Well, I don’t know where you are getting your ideas from. I’m referencing actual Christian foundational documents, creeds, and their history. I know you won’t argue your position so it’s really moot to go into detail about mine, but yes, the belief that an actual person was actually crucified is absolutely key.
Why would anything be lost much in the translation when we have access to manuscripts in the original languages? If somebody botches a translation, somebody else does it better. This happens now and then. Now, if you don’t care to do any research on the original texts, and deal with English as your starting point (if English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me), then a sort of quasi-oral tradition can be built up around re-interpretations of the English, and THAT can certainly cause problems.
Ucci, which church possess the actual manuscripts written by the original authors?
I didn’t say anything about original authors, I said original language. Linguistic translation errors is what you were clearly talking about!
THAT is what many people on both sides of the fence do. There are many threads on ILP by people who refuse to consider any but English tranlations without reference to Hebrew or Greek. It is why serious scholars or historians learn original languages to understand.
Ok so you did not mean this:
" Why would anything be lost much in the translation when we have access to manuscripts in the original languages?"
Who owns those manuscripts who copied word for word from the original documents?
Kriswest, we can only go on what we have. Irrespective of who owns them, we could always come up with a conspiracy theory.
We have access to the what is thought to be the copies of the originals, but we even get it wrong with these translations.
We refuse to acknowledge anything other than English (so long as it serves the purpose we have for it).
We refuse to refer to the original language (and examine) in order to aid our understanding.
I am not saying conspiracy. Ego, belief, passion, ignorance, yes. How are Christian Germans, Italians, French, etc, reading their bibles in English??? Our language is only one of many. Only one of many over a couple thousand years and think of how our own language has changed.
The cross incident could be well documented or perhaps not. Read Chaucer’s Canterbury tales in it’s original language, then read it in our English.
Being fluent in another language, other peoples read their Bible very differently. But having said that, on this forum we are speaking in English and those who speak English are currently influencing the world in such a way that has never been done before. On the scale of things, it does not matter how French people read their Bible. English words are penetrating my first language to the point that people do not even know they are English words (and do not know the original words). Language is not just about communicating facts, it communicates culture and values in very subtle ways (ways that English speakers have no method of understanding). This thread is a clear example of that, a simple word such as “hand” and its mistranslation is trying to communicate a cultural shift (be it beneficial or harmful).
Are you not reading carefully? We aren’t going to lose anything to translation errors because we still have texts in the languages we are translating from. As far as who owns them, well, a mix of churches and universities I suppose. I mean, when it comes to Greek, we have not quite 6000 full or partial manuscripts of the NT, so you’re asking me to provide quite a list. No one organization or one agenda has horded them all.
Other sorts of mistakes/errors/misleading stuff like differences between original manuscripts and the oldest ones we have may exist, but those aren’t translation errors because the language didn’t change.
LOL Ok You both are correct, I am mistaken.
Kris, discussing things does not make a person correct or incorrect.
I am not even disagreeing with you. I am actually agreeing with you.
Yes, Jr, I know. Words are interesting critters are they not?
People will choose what words mean based on what is in their hearts and by observing the order of words and the proximity of words to other words.
People will then infer reality based on their choice.
This inferred reality become truths.
Truths become an ideology.
An ideology becomes violence.
Violence becomes suffering.
Suffering becomes sorrow.
Sorrow become ignorance.
Ignorance becomes choice (and the process repeats).
And wars start
That is included with the violence.
This is another one of those supposed problems that has been answered long ago. I’m no Greek scholar but from what I’ve read, the Greek word used is “χείρ” which can include the forearm and the hand.
But as far as the historical method of crucifixion, the evidence seems to suggest that there were several methods not just one. Some involved ropes, some spikes, and some both as a means of securing the victim. In the case of using ropes to tie the arms, the victims weight would be held at least partially by the ropes and spikes could be driven anywhere at that point, palms or wrists.
The bottom line is that it was meant as a means of torture for the purposes of deterring political dissent against Rome. It was to be both humiliating and as slow and painful as possible. From what medical investigations of crucifixion I’ve read, a spike driven between the radius and the ulna has been demonstrated to be able to hold the weight of the body and in addition causing significant median nerve damage which would result in significant pain. Clearly achieving the objectives of the Romans.
The New Testament is written in Greek. Jesus did not speak Greek. That authors translated everything that Jesus said into Greek. Jesus’ original words and meanings are altered.
Early testimony of Papias(70-163 AD), bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, who personally knew the Apostle John stated that “Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in Aramaic” and the early church claimed that his gospel was originally composed in Aramaic. But Greek copies of his gospel are all that are extant. So as you say, the possibility does exist that some things were lost in the translation as they say.
Given that all we have extant are Greek manuscripts, and Jesus almost certainly taught in Aramaic, they original words are obviously not the same. As to whether the meanings are altered in any way affecting anything significant to doctrine is unlikely. The apostles were alive and available to correct any inaccuracies due to translation to Greek (Papias states that others were translating Matthews gospel from Aramaic to Greek in his day). The Apostle John lived into the 90’s AD and his gospel was the last written. He was available and had the authority to correct any such inaccuracies in all previous gospels.