I am confused by translations, too

[Jim_Baur]

Just as idea, I have always laughed at the amount of notes in the New Testament. The notes are more numerous than the text, especially for the gospels.

The CCC says we must start at the literal interpretation, and move to the other three, that is, allegory, moral and anagogical. I feel that the translation has, in some passages, destroyed the literal and making it most difficult to know and understand the other three levels of Scripture. Let me give one example: the burning thorn bush. Jesus tells us that thrones are worldly anxieties. Moses saw God in a burning thorn bush (c@nah: 1) a bush, thorny bush), not just a burning bush. Morally, God has to burn my worldly thorns, too. I can feel the burning right now.

Another simple example: I believe that the word barter or trade might be better than sell (poleo). I am to trade the world’s way for Christ’s way.

I know that the notes can be of help, too. I have learned many things from many different schools of theology. Unfortunately my knowledge of Greek, Hebrew and Latin make me laugh. I am the Sergeant Schultz of English, not to mention other languages. Thus my next statement is that of a baby. I believe that the Septuagint (LXX) and the Vulgate are great. I know that some scholar, I don’t know the numbers, would be laughing now. My common sense says that the 70 knew the culture, history, geography and the biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew much better than the scholars of today. I believe Isaiah 7: 14 of the LXX, a virgin was with child.

When I read the translations of Origen, Augustine and Ambrose I see that the Vulgate and LXX translate things differently than the Bibles of today. Who am I to believe? I will go with the people who lived and spoke the biblical languages.

Again, I know nothing of biblical languages. I am puzzled when the Holy Bible says the etymology of a word and the translators correct the Holy Bible, at least in the notes. I have no idea who is correct. I believe the Holy Bible.

Just an idea or two…

 

[copland]

There are times alot of footnotes are good for Bibles, especially if it is a literal translation. The reason is because there are translators that paraphrase or do what is called a ‘dynamic equivilent’ meaning they try to relay meaning for meaning and sense for sense from one language to another. But a literal translation will try to go word for word as much as the English language will allow, such as verb for verb, noun for noun, etc. But since languages like Greek, Aramaic, and Latin are unlike English where you we know who is doing what by the order of the words, it does require some careful transmission to stay faithful to the meaning. And also there are idioms in other languages that don’t carry over into English, and it requires footnotes to explain that.

I would rather have a literal translation with footnotes to explain, than to have a doctrinally biased translator relaying ‘meaning for meaning,’ if you know what I mean.

I will speak more about this later on, I am pressed for time.

 

[Eileen_T]

I mainly use The Jerusalem Bible but, whenever I am unsure of some meaning, I check it out with the Douay Rheims. I also go looking for what the Early Church Fathers had to say. I would rather put my trust in them than in some modern scholar.

 

[Vatican_II]

Jim Baur:

Again, I know nothing of biblical languages. I am puzzled when the Holy Bible says the etymology of a word and the translators correct the Holy Bible, at least in the notes. I have no idea who is correct. I believe the Holy Bible.

Just an idea or two…

The first thing you must understand are that the footnotes are not inspired writing. Even with an Imprimatur errors can be made as is the case with the New American Bible where the footnotes for Matthew where the evangelist is recounting that Jesus told his disciples when he is preparing to enter Jerusalem to fetch an *** and a colt, attributes error to Matthew for not understanding the associated prophesy. Attributing error to Matthew is going against the teachings of the Church as described by Pope Leo XIII where the Bible and all parts within are error free. Today the most popular versions of the Bible use are the NAB, the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSVCE) and the Jerusalem Bibles. The RSVCE and Jerusalem are the more literal translations. I personally use the Navarre Bible which uses the RSVCE english version and has a significant amount of footnotes based on papal letters, doctors of the church and early church fathers. It also provides for the New Vulgate translation as well.

 

[TOME]

Just a quick note, often I come to this forum as Teme525, it’s not to fool anyone it just depends on the particular computer I am using.

I see some discussion about the translations of the Bible and the different translations and question why the variations.

One difficulty, and perhaps the most difficult for translators when dealing with the OT is the fact that in the original hebrew the scroll of Scripture, when written in Hebrew (not Aramaic but Hebrew) the were no vowels. The placement of the proper vowel in a particular work was based on the oral traditions of the Jewish teachers Scribes originally and eventually it came to the rabbi’s and their traditions.

But, to include one vowel and not another can and does change the meaning of the text. For example, as Catholics we look to the OT for the prophecy of Jesus being born of a Virgin. (But, I think it is Isaiah - or which ever book) change one vowel, then the text should be translated as a young women, not necessarily a virgin.
Many of the rabbinical traditions hold that what was handed on to them holds that the word does not mean Virgin. Who then is correct and how do does someone who is translating the text decide what the correct word is if both Virgin or Young Women can be seen as correct?

There are many other difficult words and text in the OT that are similar in nature to the example above. This is where the use of historical criticism can and is a usefull tool along with the other sciences used in translating the Bible.