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

Translating the Bible is a vexed task

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 183 posts

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#81

Post by rom16384 »

Luker88 wrote: post #57

Where do I find a literal translation of the bible? I would like one that does not force a meaning on words that are not known. I think have read enough fiction with made up words to be able to understand something anyway. Also, maybe not based on Latin? Latin was not the original language anyway, and I got fed up with the mistranslations that we keep repeating as correct. I gave up after searching and learning the h…

Try the YLT, Young's Literal Translation, https://biblehub.com/ylt/genesis/1.htm

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#82

Post by lolinder »

MonkeyClub wrote: post #34
icemelt8 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

entire islamic theology is based on Abraham and his actions, the rituals in the holy journey of Hajj and Umrah are all repeats of actions of Abraham and his family.

Yep it’s a very narrow focus on one person, and disregards the millennium of Judaic and Christian traditions that followed on from Abraham. In general, to my ears “Abrahamic religions” is a forced academic classification, and doesn’t point to any actual spiritual kinship shared between the religions thus classified.

> Yep it’s a very narrow focus on one person

That one person being Abraham. Hence "Abrahamic". If the adjective were "Davidic" you'd have a point, but the whole premise of the "Abrahamic religions" label is that they trace their religious genealogy back to Abraham. The label makes no claim about any shared history since then.

EDIT: And as far as your claim of a lack of spiritual kinship—do you know anything about any of the non-Abrahamic religions? When you set Hinduism or Shinto into the mix, Islam practically looks like a sect of Christianity.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#83

Post by lolinder »

shakna wrote: post #77
messe wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are plenty of cults that spring out of every major religion Where do you draw the line?

Generally speaking, size and widespread acceptance. The use of the word "cult" there, isn't an insult. It just speaks to the smaller breakoff groups that form. Protestantism began as a cult. It is no longer. Sort of like how creeks spring from every river.

Given that this is a conversation about Islam, this whole subthread seems like a distraction. By any metric of "size and widespread acceptance", Islam is a major religion whose claims should be treated as seriously as any other (which doesn't necessarily mean they should be taken at face value).

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#84

Post by xeromal »

Luker88 wrote: post #57

Where do I find a literal translation of the bible? I would like one that does not force a meaning on words that are not known. I think have read enough fiction with made up words to be able to understand something anyway. Also, maybe not based on Latin? Latin was not the original language anyway, and I got fed up with the mistranslations that we keep repeating as correct. I gave up after searching and learning the h…

Check out the ESV

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#85

Post by xeromal »

wizofaus wrote: post #29

I'm more curious about the first word in that article - is "dodgy" becoming accepted as part of the US English vernacular now? It's particularly common in Aus English but I usually have to find alternatives when conversing with Usonians.

Now that I think about it, dodgy isn't used everywhere but it wouldn't feel out of place if someone used it here in the US unlike other commonwealth words like bonnet or solicitor.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#86

Post by User23 »

Amezarak wrote: post #25
fjfaase wrote: post #10

Rather superficial article about the subject. Whole books are written about the subject or why one translation is better than another. (A quick search will find you people telling you not to use the King James translation.) The article does not even touch upon culture things, such like how to deal with a translation for a culture where pigs are kept as pets or cattle, while in the old testament they are considered as…

> (A quick search will find you people telling you not to use the King James translation.) Most of them are bad reasons - for example, one very popular criticism is the claim that KJV invented the usage of the word "unicorn" in the Bible, and it's actually a wild ox. But it was traditionally translated that way from the time of the Latin Vulgate, and nobody knows for sure what a re'em is. [Ed - it turns out the Septu…

There’s even a KJV for Catholics now thanks to some Anglicans choosing to become Catholic.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#87

Post by cess11 »

jkepler wrote: post #65
sofixa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In general, to my ears “Abrahamic religions” is a forced academic classification, and doesn’t point to any actual spiritual kinship shared between the religions thus classified. They all share the same god and the same origin story, and even share religious sites. Compare them to any other religion, and they are quite close.

> They all share the same god ... Except that they don't share the same god. The Christian God is triune, one God existing in the three distinct persons of Father, Son, and Spirit, which the Jews and Muslims both reject. Further, though Judaism and Christianity agree that the only true creator God, YHWH (or Yahweh/Jehovah according to Christianity), has revealed himself in deeds and words, Islam says that his name is…

Allah isn't a name in that sense, it's the arabic word that means God, and it's the one that christian arabs use when they talk about God from a christian perspective.

There's a lot of different ideas about what monotheism and God means within those three, highly related, religious families too.

It's very weird to single out islam in this way, seems political rather than historic or religious.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#88

Post by [deleted] »

MonkeyClub wrote: post #40
cdogl wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Islam incorporates Jesus, Moses and Abraham. The continuity is direct, both historically and theologically. The histories of Christianity and Islam are wrapped up in one another. After all, the Arab conquests took what europe called the “near east”, which had previously been Hellenized and Romanized. Whatever perceived gulf lies between Islam and Christendom politically, I don’t think the history bears it out.

> The continuity is direct, both historically and theologically. Theological continuity would mean that Islam accepts and extends, ie that Jesus is the anticipated Messiah subsequently crucified and risen, not to mention accepting Jesus as the son of God and final prophet. I have yet to find any Islamic faction that holds that to be true :)

[deleted]

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#89

Post by lolinder »

MonkeyClub wrote: post #4

“Traduttore, traditore” (“translator, you traitor!”). Translating ancient texts is hard enough given the complex historical and cultural contexts. When it comes to religious texts, though, the level of complexity grows exponentially, especially given how their contexts widen. On an unrelated note, this always vexes me: > By contrast, the two faiths’ cousin—Christianity I get how one can see a relation between Judaism…

No one calls Islam a "Judaic" religion or a "Christian" religion, they call it an "Abrahamic" religion. That implies nothing more than a shared relationship to Abraham. How far they diverge theologically from that point is irrelevant to the question of whether they can all be considered Abrahamic.

Also, as far as the differences go, this comment shows a stark lack of understanding of world religions in general. For all the differences between Islam, Judaism and Christianity, their similarities are glaringly obvious when placed alongside Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, or any of the other religions of the world. "Abrahamic religions" is a very useful grouping for religious studies, serving much the same role as the "Romance languages" in linguistics.

When you look at the full scope of what is possible in religion, the Abrahamic religions have more in common than they do differences.

Re: Translating the Bible is a vexed task

#90

Post by carapace »

jkepler wrote: post #65
sofixa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In general, to my ears “Abrahamic religions” is a forced academic classification, and doesn’t point to any actual spiritual kinship shared between the religions thus classified. They all share the same god and the same origin story, and even share religious sites. Compare them to any other religion, and they are quite close.

> They all share the same god ... Except that they don't share the same god. The Christian God is triune, one God existing in the three distinct persons of Father, Son, and Spirit, which the Jews and Muslims both reject. Further, though Judaism and Christianity agree that the only true creator God, YHWH (or Yahweh/Jehovah according to Christianity), has revealed himself in deeds and words, Islam says that his name is…

> [H]is name is Allah.

"Allah" is not a name, it's the Arabic word for "God".

> These three monotheistic religions each have separate conceptions of God.

Right, separate human conceptions of the same God.

Post reply on HN