 |
And how many language changes/translations did the NT writings go through before they ended up in English? If you've studied a language other than English, you know about the slang, idioms, double meanings, et al. that make it so difficult to translate from one language into another. And we don't even have the original writings!Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Ohh... ok... Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Aramaic was a regional language. Historically, because of the spread of the Greek, and subsequently Roman Empires, Greek (Koine Greek) became the defacto language of everyday life. It is also well established historically that the NT was written in Koine Greek, which is no doubt a part of God's plan, because it allowed to rapid spread of the gospel across the Roman Empire. Sources are readily available regarding this topic. Here is a link which may help you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Triund
Koine Greek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since non-literary, simple Greek knowledge or competency in multiple languages was relatively widespread in Jewish Palestine including Galilee, and a Greek-speaking community had already developed in Jerusalem shortly after Easter, one can assume that this linguistic transformation [from "the Aramaic native language of Jesus" to "the Greek Gospels"] began very early.. . [M]issionaries, above all 'Hellenists' driven out of Jerusalem, soon preached their message in the Greek language. We find them in Damascus as early as AD 32 or 33. A certain percentage of Jesus' earliest followers were presumably bilingual and could therefore report, at least in simple Greek, what had been heard and seen. This probably applies to Cephas/Peter, Andrew, Philip or John. Mark, too, who was better educated in Jerusalem than the Galilean fishermen, belonged to this milieu. The great number of phonetically correct Aramaisms and his knowledge of the conditions in Jewish Palestine compel us to assume a Palestinian Jewish-Christian author. Also, the author's Aramaic native language is still discernible in the Marcan style.
(Source: Martin Hengel. 2005. "Eye-witness memory and the writing of the Gospels: Form criticism, community tradition and the authority of the authors." In The Written Gospel, ed. by Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 89f.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People in that day were usually multi lingual(could speak more than one language) Being occupied by Rome, Greek was the main language. The Jews had their home language of Hebrew and Aramaic was commonly spoken. The Jews in that day were very well educated and the contention that the apostles were all illiterate is totally unsubstantiated. Even if they were, which is highly doubtful, they wouldn't have just hoped oral tradition would keep the stories straight until scholars wrote them down. They would have persons write down exactly what they told them. (As Paul- the most highly educated man in that day, probably did due to his poor eyesight.)
And the truth is, many of us would like the Bible to say more what we believe. We want the Bible to fit our pre-concieved ideas rather than read, study, and let the word change our way of thinking.
Mark Twain said, "The parts of the Bible that I don't understand don't bother me at all. What bothers me is the parts that I do understand."
From what I know of history, literacy was the exception, not the rule until after Gutenberg. Until that time, it was mostly priests and high nobility could read and write. So while, I agree that the contention that apostles were illiterate may be unsuibstantiated, the odds were that at least most of them were.Quote:
Originally Posted by homesell
The fact that their literacy was unsubstantiated is because a great deal of what we know of that time is unsubstantiated. Much of it is guesswork and conjecture. So we can discuss and debate this for another couple of millennia. There is little here that is not opinion because of that. Until someone invents a device that will allow us to travel back in time or even to just view past events, to each his own!
I agree with you, Jeff.Quote:
Originally Posted by homesell
Scottgem,
You're right. At that time illiteracy was the rule rather than the exception. The hebrews WERE that exception. The first things taught to young hebrews was to read and write(according to historians and hebrew culture experts)
Even to this day education is stressed in the hebrew family. (I grew up in the Miami Beach area and Jews were about 50% of my neighborhood including both side and back as neighbors.) The kids would go to Hebrew school after regular school to learn the Hebrew reading and writing and it's almost repeating yourself if you say a Jewish Doctor or Jewish Lawyer.
Reading the above posts reminds me what I said few days ago to my friend and that goes like this.
We have another proof to tell people about it that the Bible is the Word of God. If people say that, Constantine asked few guys to sit down and read the scriptures and write books and later brought those books together and made The Bible out of that, agreed, though this is not the truth. Now my question is, how did a person know what is going to happen after 1700 years? (I am talking about the prophecies regarding End Times.)
For ejoyment of reading I like the New Jerusalem Bible
Triund - thanks for taking the time to share some of your thoughts. I'll be very brief and to the point (I hope). First, you did not personally hurt me nor do I think you hurt anyone else (I don't want to speak for anyone). What I was responding to were your words, which I will quote here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Triund
"New and contemporary versions have changed few words with new words that has different meanings, removed and truncated some verses. The reason behind this is a hidden agenda of Satan to misguide the followers of the Word."
I am responding to the implications of your statement. You are implying that everyone who reads a contemporary version of the bible (not KJV 1611) is being potentially misled. Triund, think about the logic of what you are saying. Moreover, if you compile these differences that you pointed out, the question I have is does the bible seize to be the bible anymore? Can I still function as a believer with a version like the NIV? If all of the bibles in the world but one NIV were to be destroyed, would I be in jeopardy?
Personally, I was so strong with my words because I have seen Christians destroy friendships, whole churches divided, and utter foolishness creep into the lives of people over this very issue: KJV 1611. To me, the more obvious and eggregious error I have found in this whole issue is that SOME of the people who cling so tightly to the KJV only are some of the most ungodly and hateful people I have ever met... Triund, no matter what bible you choose to read, let it be the words of God that actually guide your life and not the version of the bible itself.
Well said Jakester. In addition, let me add that if you read the introduction written by the original translators of the KJV, they were promoting use of the Bible in the contemporary language. Something opposed by the very people who hold most strongly to the KJV 1611.
Christian cults are my specialty and I can tell you from firsthand experience that almost all "christian" cults either write their own Bible(Like the New World translation) or they pick different translations, plucking obscure verses out of context to support their pre-conceived doctrines. One group, trying to support that Jesus was not God in the flesh, went so far as to use a translation from a man that claimed the spirit world gave him the translation while in a séance. Another group used a German translation for one verse that supposedly, when translated to English, said that Jesus was only a God rather than the God. Polytheism.
Watch out for any group that uses a translation that is NOT widely accepted. My only beef with kjv is the difficulty with the readability of the language and the fact that language changes over the course of time to have different if not opposite meanings. Some examples, 60 years ago a gay person was someone happy and cheerful. When something was bad, it really was bad. Some things are "cool" and "hot" depending on the generation using the word. If a person got an actual copy straight off the press of the original 1611 version(I've seen one) that person would not be able to read it with much comprehension. The Language has changed that much from that to the current KJV. I, really like the New KJV. To me, the same beauty and easy to understand.
Dear Friend, I fully understand what you are saying. Thank you for your advice and I agree with you. Also, I thank you for showing me what had happened in the pass. What I came to know about the newer version, I shared with people. I did not and am not forcing any one to switch to KJV. I am not asking to burn new versions, I am not trying to shake up non-KJV readers' faith, I am not saying that reading KJV will send you to Heaven for sure. Having faith and salvation, going to Heaven or Hell is all by HIS grace. Earning salvation or going to Heaven has much more to do other than reading Bible only. And we already had lots of discussion on salvation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jakester
I appreciate your feedback, Jake. God bless you!!
Hey, don't sweat it! The truth of truths is that the Holy Spirit of the Living God is the only one responsible for Interpretation of all scriptures in the heart of man. We know concretely that it is his influence on our hearts which causes us to know him and to do that which pleases God. I am firmly convinced that he could use any literature to convey his logic to man,however he chose the words of Christ as written in the testimony of his original apostles. Men throughout the ages have have attempted to form a cannon which to considered as a general standard for instruction and worship,but the wisdom of man doesn't work the love of God. Today there are writings attributed to the apostles which are not in the canonized works. I believe that the caves at the dead sea being opened during the time of the rebuilding of the nation of Israel is no coincidence. Christ promised that before the time of the end knowledge would increase. The Bible ,as it were, is still being written in the Kingdom of Heaven,in our hearts as well as on paper. Truth to remember is that Jesus of Nazareth is the only complete and infallible "Word" of God,and If we as believers still contend that a written work by man's hand should be labeled as the word of god we at least may fall into the same derision as the pharisees and give respect to the syntax of the letter over the principle of the message,or at worst, become guilty or ignorant idolatry.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:07 PM. |