Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Alter Bible

tabletmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: The Alter Bible

#41

Post by larkost »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #9
te_platt wrote: post #5

I've always been fascinated by the difficulties of translation. There is the issue of expressing the original thought. Already I've edited this post several times. Then there is the issue of the surrounding context which will be different for different people. Even for people in the same culture at the same time in the same place. Then the issue of the attitude of the reader. It's not uncommon to get different meanin…

I'd prefer a translator that just gave me the words and sentences. As a receiver of that information I can learn to do my own interpretation. Imperfectly and only after some thought and experience, but at least the translator won't be 'in the way' changing the message.

I am left jumping to the conclusion that you don't speak a second (living) language. There are very often thoughts in one language that can not be directly expressed in another specific language. I have those problems quite often between English and German (meaning the modern versions). Sometimes you need multiple sentences to explain, even in approximate terms, things that need only a single word in the other language (e.x.: "genau" or "gemutlichkeit" in German, or "subtle" in English). And here I am not talking about idiom (which can change rapidly). And German and English are contemporary languages, with cultures that are driving them together (think all of the U.S. films that are translated into German).

Now add that the Bible was written in a few now-dead languages, with 1900-2200 years since it was first written, and you are going to get a lot of differences in thought, much of which requires you to have knowledge that you are not going to be able to come up with thinking through it yourself.

Two examples of how fast things can change: 1. When I first went to Germany the word "geil" explicitly meant someone who was attractive, or good at sex. So it was not really part of polite speech. 10 years later I went back to the same part of Germany and the word now was used in normal conversations and meant "really good", without any sexual connotations. 2. If you look at American Pilgrim literature you see a lot of references to "God is great", usually alongside the phrase "God fearing" when talking about religious people. This is because just a few hundred years ago the word "great" in English specifically meant "powerful" in a violent way. Nowadays if you listen to a Christian sermon in the U.S. they will still say "God is great", but will be talking about how gentle and loving God is.

Language can move really fast, and thinking that you understand something that someone wrote hundreds of years ago without a good interpreter is unrealistic. There is always going to be an interpreter in the way. And one who just "translates the words" is not doing you any favors.

Re: The Alter Bible

#42

Post by DiffEq »

sleazy_b wrote: post #40
DiffEq wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except nowhere in the Bible does it say that you can not buy whisky on Sunday.

The prohibition against conducting business on the sabbath might be where this comes from.

Sure but the Sabbath is Saturday not Sunday. And current christian dogma is that the law is no longer required to be kept (Grace). So whatever mainstream christian religions do today in terms of what they "allow or do not allow" is just whatever they decided they wanted to allow or not allow. So these people are not reading the Bible and taking it literally, they are reading the Bible to get ideas on how tell others to not do, or do, whatever they approve of or don't approve of. It is rather...what would Christ say, Pharisaical?

Re: The Alter Bible

#43

Post by war1025 »

krapp wrote: post #17
lqet wrote: post #11

Very interesting, and although I have little to no experience with reading the bible, I have to say that everything Alter is quoted as saying in this article makes obvious sense to me. The difficulties translators have with any text should be a reminder of how painfully inadequate any language is as a mediator between two different brains. So much depends in context. > Perhaps the first person to openly suggest other…

>However, it makes me extremely sad if self-proclaimed "atheists" make fun of the the Bible / Torah / Koran by pointing out how unrealistic almost all of the texts are. I don't think atheists would have a problem with anyone treating the Bible (or any religious text) as literature, since there would be a lot less religious violence in the event that religious doctrine couldn't be cited as an absolute authority. But,…

> But, many modern Christians insist that the Bible must be taken literally, and that it should be taught as science, or presented as an alternative to science. Those are the people atheists are making fun of, and they deserve the ridicule.

I think where people went wrong with this is that what at the heart of it people really want to mean is that the Bible is something they use to base their life around. Then other people come along and tell them that science is what they base their lives around. And instead of realizing that the two are different and there is inherent value in both, they responded by saying, "Well, my Bible is science."

At their heart, religious texts are accumulated wisdom that has held up over many generations. It is different from science in its ability to predict the world, but fairly similar in the way it can guide personal experience and expectations within the world.

Re: The Alter Bible

#44

Post by jki275 »

otterpro wrote: post #22

Translating Bible is a difficult task. There are usually two camps of philosophy of Bible translation. There's the word-for-word style where words are translated literally, rather than its intended meaning -- such as the classic King James Version (1611 AD), and more modern NKJV, NASB and ESV. Then there's thought-for-thought style, where it is translated based on its connotation, intention, and geared for modern Eng…

The KJV is not a word-for-word literal translation, nor is the NIV a paraphrase.

There's a lot more nuance involved.

Reading the KJV gives you difficulty because the translation was made in 1615 and the English language has changed significantly since then.

Re: The Alter Bible

#45

Post by Prologue »

DiffEq wrote: post #38
scarecrowbob wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you just dismiss these religious texts as opium for the dull medieval masses, you might miss some deep poetical truths about mankind that just cannot be stated explicitly because of the shortcomings of any human language described above." I generally agree with your take on how we should read these texts. However, nobody (that I know of) has been using Shakespeare to justify preventing me from buying whiskey on a…

Except nowhere in the Bible does it say that you can not buy whisky on Sunday.

And still it is used!

Just like it never says anything against stem cell research or homosexuality.

Re: The Alter Bible

#46

Post by tomohawk »

gus_massa wrote: post #15
lqet wrote: post #11

Very interesting, and although I have little to no experience with reading the bible, I have to say that everything Alter is quoted as saying in this article makes obvious sense to me. The difficulties translators have with any text should be a reminder of how painfully inadequate any language is as a mediator between two different brains. So much depends in context. > Perhaps the first person to openly suggest other…

The difference is that nobody was ever burn for proclaiming that Dante's work was just fiction. If you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, saying that these texts are "unrealistic" would get you in trouble.

The fact that people were burnt alive says more about the people in power than about any text. Certain people in power will always find ways to persecute people that disagree with them. See also, the French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Mao's Great Leap, and many other sad episodes where nasty people achieved power.

There is no motivation in the teachings of Christ to burn people alive. Quite the contrary.

Re: The Alter Bible

#47

Post by scarecrowbob »

DiffEq wrote: post #38
scarecrowbob wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you just dismiss these religious texts as opium for the dull medieval masses, you might miss some deep poetical truths about mankind that just cannot be stated explicitly because of the shortcomings of any human language described above." I generally agree with your take on how we should read these texts. However, nobody (that I know of) has been using Shakespeare to justify preventing me from buying whiskey on a…

Except nowhere in the Bible does it say that you can not buy whisky on Sunday.

Yeah, I know, I've read it.

One of my fond childhood memories is not being able to buy this cheap, blue, plastic squirtgun because it was Sunday.

I'm pretty sure that's not in the bible either, but theocrats gonna do what they do.

Re: The Alter Bible

#48

Post by tomohawk »

krapp wrote: post #17
lqet wrote: post #11

Very interesting, and although I have little to no experience with reading the bible, I have to say that everything Alter is quoted as saying in this article makes obvious sense to me. The difficulties translators have with any text should be a reminder of how painfully inadequate any language is as a mediator between two different brains. So much depends in context. > Perhaps the first person to openly suggest other…

>However, it makes me extremely sad if self-proclaimed "atheists" make fun of the the Bible / Torah / Koran by pointing out how unrealistic almost all of the texts are. I don't think atheists would have a problem with anyone treating the Bible (or any religious text) as literature, since there would be a lot less religious violence in the event that religious doctrine couldn't be cited as an absolute authority. But,…

Karl Marx, whose ideas have been used to justify so much mayhem, misery, and death - all in the name of 'progress'. I think we do without more of that sort of progress.

Re: The Alter Bible

#49

Post by Prologue »

Retra wrote: post #33
pax wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how else would/could be an atheist (or believer, for that matter) if not self-proclaimed? Does an atheist need external vetting to be a proper atheist? Also, what was the reason for the ironic quotation marks, do you imply those aren't real atheists?

To be fair, there is an argument to be made that a person's beliefs are better represented by their actual behavior under the conditions of life, rather than what they profess about them in hypotheticals. In that perspective, the best way to be an atheist would be to simply act like one.

Atheism is not a thing, it is not a religion nor a political position; it is not a cult where everybody acts the same, thus you cannot "act like an atheist". There are no actions you are required to perform in order to be considered an atheist. You can even go to church every sunday, as many atheists do, and still be an atheist.

Re: The Alter Bible

#50

Post by Prologue »

tomohawk wrote: post #46
gus_massa wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that nobody was ever burn for proclaiming that Dante's work was just fiction. If you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, saying that these texts are "unrealistic" would get you in trouble.

The fact that people were burnt alive says more about the people in power than about any text. Certain people in power will always find ways to persecute people that disagree with them. See also, the French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, Mao's Great Leap, and many other sad episodes where nasty people achieved power. There is no motivation in the teachings of Christ to burn people alive. Quite the contrary.

I agree with your first paragraph, but I really, really have to ask you: don't you consider the threat of being burned for all eternity, postulated by Jesus himself as a punishment for not believing not enough motivation?
Post reply on HN