Scripture meaning lost through translation?

[ByTheSpirit]

This is not the one I was looking for ...it looks like this is from another post I did...(so many files and thumb drives)
I have a file that has more information like why translators left n the Aramaic words and some other things but you can get the jest of the meaning from this....
And I will be checking the Peshitta for other things that may be of interest.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Matthew 27:46

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? [that is to say], My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
the words that is to say are not in the Aramaic text

Some people say Jesus was quoting Psalms 22:1

Psa 22:1
[[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?



But…Consider the following scripture:


John 10:30

I and my Father are one.
The word one hen neuter, means “one in purpose”
How could they be one in purpose….. and have God forsake Him on the cross.

How about:

II Corinthians 5:19a
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself…
How could God be in Christ and forsake him?

John 16:32

Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me

Matthew 26:53

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels

God would provided Jesus more than 72,000 angles…. At any point Jesus could have walked away with a massive amount of spiritual body guards.


So how do we reconcile these scriptures with Matthew 27:46… it would appear to be a contradiction of terms.


It has been said that God hated sin so much that he had to turn away during the final moments of His only begotten sons life…..I don't think so.

One of the principles of biblical research is when you have several clear verses, and one that seemingly contradicts those clear... then it is either in our understanding, or in translation…..In this case it is translation.

The words Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani are Aramaic, that is the language Jesus spoke
There is no such Aramaic word as lama however there is a word lmna which is a declaration as in “for this reason” or “for this purpose”
The word sabachthani comes from the root word shbk which means “to spare, or to keep, to leave, or reserve”.

(The word remaining in the following verses have all been translated from shbk II Kings 10:11, Deuteronomy 3:3, Joshua 10:33)


Literally this should read Eli, Eli, lmna sabachthani that is to say, “My God, My God, for this reason, or for this purpose was I reserved, or spared”.


For this purpose Christ came into this world, the purpose of redemption…

Now that would be an interesting study if we left it there…but let’s put some icing on the cake
**From the Peshitta {Aramaic text} this reads Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani “My God, My God, for this I was spared, or this was my destiny”.

**Another interesting fact: I was told that ….most all eastern Bibles have “for this purpose I was spared” while the Occidental translations read “why hast thou forsaken me.

That is very interesting. Do you not view that scripture as Jesus quoting the Psalm then?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

The Word of God has become very deluded and distorted over time primarily for the purpose of making money. What a lot of people do not realize is that each time a new version of the Bible comes out in order for that company to obtain a copyright the book must be changed by 20% of any other published book or Bible. When you think about how many translations are out there that is a lot of change from the original text.

Maybe, but that’s not what I’m asking. I’m curious how much meaning has been lost from what Jesus actually said in Aramaic, to the Greek that was written in, to the English we have now.

 

[Love Fountain]

Having a hard time getting this question in a way that is satisfactory. We know the gospels are written in Greek, maybe Matthew had a Hebrew version, but still not in Jesus' original tongue of Aramaic.

How different would it have been to have heard his words in Aramaic and understand his messages in it's original context and form, than it is for us having them translated from one language, to another, to another still? I'm sure it doesn't change a bunch, probably just loses depth of meaning.

Example, in Greek there's multiple words for love like philia or agape. Philia is like a brotherly love or affection whereas agape is unconditional, sacrificial, and perfect love. Yet in English scripture it's usually just translated as "love". Perhaps someone here knows Aramaic (?) and can explain what a passage would mean in that as opposed to English.

Just curious, thanks!

Hello,

Hope the following is helpful in your quest. Would explain in own words but it is so eloquently stated, why change it? Then again some might say, "it's all Greek to me".


"The fact must ever be remembered that, while the language of the New Testament is Greek, the agents and instruments employed by the Holy Spirit were Hebrews. God spake "by the mouth of his holy prophets." Hence, while the "mouth" and the throat and vocal-chords and breath were human, the words were Divine.

No one is able to understand the phenomenon; or explain how it comes to pass: for Inspiration is a fact to be believed and received, and not a matter to be reasoned about.

While therefore, the words are Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew.

Some, on this account, have condemned the Greek of the New Testament, because it is not classical; while others, in their anxiety to defend it, have endeavoured to find parallel usages in classical Greek authors.

Both might have spared their pains by recognising that the New Testament Greek abounds with Hebraisms: i.e., expressions conveying Hebrew usages and thoughts in Greek words.

It will be seen at once that this is a subject which has a large and important bearing on the interpretation and clear understanding of many passages in the New Testament."

Idioma; or Idiom - Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in the Bible - StudyLight.org

Blessings,
Love Fountain

 

[sandman]

That is very interesting. Do you not view that scripture as Jesus quoting the Psalm then?

I do not believe that Jesus was quoting Psalms.

The reason people say that is because of the incorrectly translated words.

Jesus spoke Aramaic.
A few sources I have read, stated …..When these words that Jesus spoke were translated into Greek… they added what they thought the translation might be … but the translator's let the Aramaic words remain because the translators were not absolutely certain about their meaning…. And later when The King James translators were translating from the Greek MMS, they simply translated the Greek and left the Aramaic in.

The whole Psalms theory is based on an inaccurate premises….and it’s just speculation at that.
Based on the scripture I provided… I absolutely do not believe that God forsook Jesus at any time.

I think saying that God could not handle the sin that Jesus took upon Himself ….is a made up human derogatory statement that is perpetrated to make God look small and weak. ...We know better.

 

[RDKirk]

The Word of God has become very deluded and distorted over time primarily for the purpose of making money. What a lot of people do not realize is that each time a new version of the Bible comes out in order for that company to obtain a copyright the book must be changed by 20% of any other published book or Bible. When you think about how many translations are out there that is a lot of change from the original text.

No, that's not true. There is no "percentage of change" that must be made to be copyrighted. That's not how copyright works under any circumstances, not even determining "fair use."

Any translation made directly from the extant manuscripts can be copyrighted, even if it happens to be extremely close to an existing translation.

It's like two photographers standing side-by-side taking a photograph of the same scene. Even though their resulting images will look substantially the same, they can each copyright the image they each took.

 

[RDKirk]

Maybe, but that’s not what I’m asking. I’m curious how much meaning has been lost from what Jesus actually said in Aramaic, to the Greek that was written in, to the English we have now.

What Jesus said in Aramaic was remembered by others years later to be written in Greek.

We know that Luke, for instance, was a native Greek speaker who interviewed those who had personally known Jesus to write his gospel. Although it's possible they conversed in Aramaic, it's more likely the Aramaic speakers spoke in Greek to Luke, who then wrote down their testimonies in Greek.

It's as likely that the other gospels were also initially written in Greek, either by Aramaic speakers writing in what was to them a second language, or Greek speakers writing down the testimonies passed to them from Aramaic speaker--probably speaking in Greek.

What we must depend on is the Holy Spirit working through all of them to provide a document through which He can work to give us the knowledge we need to fulfill the Lord's purposes.

 

[sandman]

You got me inquisitive

That is very interesting. Do you not view that scripture as Jesus quoting the Psalm then?

You got me wondering about other things in the Peshitta that are different…So I was checking a few things…. primarily words that I know have been added…. but do not alter the text in any detrimental way…However, I did check the controversial scripture in 1 John 5….which I have always been suspicious of ….it just looked out of place.

Whatever people believe is up to them…. I am just giving it to you as per the Peshitta.


This is the common KJV

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


This is the Peshitta

6. This is he who came by water and blood, even Jesus, not by water only, but by water and blood.

7. And the spirit testifies that the very spirit is the truth.

8. And there are three too bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one.

 

[JohnRemnant]

I don't think so. My timelines are off with what language came into use, and what not. But If there was any doubt, its more likely you would want to translate to Hebrew of the OT, and its language and teachings, and not Aramaic. Of a specific region.
Its not likely Christ spoke one language, but being in the synagogues daily, teaching from the manuscripts understood Hebrew ,Latin, Greek and many popular languages of that time and area. I doubt any language was a barrier to Him given what took place in Acts 2.

So the question of translations has to do with the languages we have, in written form. Not so much what specific Christ spoke. It assumes there would be some better grasp of things, and that may not always be the case.

We have to work with what languages we have the text written in, and from there translate to whatever.
But the main importance being the language The Holy Spirit actually sanctioned for transmission of Gods word. That being The Hebrew Christ taught from of The OT.
Those being where the teachings stem, then you'd want to be sure to draw meaning there and that language, and not every other language under the sun.

The Greek has this issue, with such words as Hades, and what not. These not being words used in the OT of these same teachings on life after death is just one example, of where a student must be mindful to draw from established meanings God has given which Christ is teaching, Gods word.

We already have questions about some passages, in English. And in terms, of what manuscripts English is drawing from. I rather focus there and be sure to note those issues, and correct them if needed.

Some form of Aramaic may come into play in Daniel during the captivity and the prayer of Nebuchadnezzar. And there is a verse or two that notes the use of Aramaic by Christ in the NT. But to totally translate in that language would not do a whole lot of good in my opinion, you'd still have to translate into English. However it would serve a Aramaic speaker good .

 

[RDKirk]

But the main importance being the language The Holy Spirit actually sanctioned for transmission of Gods word. That being The Hebrew Christ taught from of The OT.

But that isn't true.

The Holy Spirit was the guiding force behind the creation of the New Testament, and He had Paul, Luke, James (who was writing to Hebrew people) and the writer of Hebrews (also writing to Hebrew people) write in Greek.

Paul or James or some of the others could certainly have written in Hebrew, but the Holy Spirit had them writing in Greek.

 

[JohnRemnant]

While there is truth in the statement, its not entirely the full story.
Much of the theology, draws on The Hebrew language and teachings of the OT. Even though they are conveyed in Greek. For doctrines sake, the theology is understood clearly in Hebrew. But in Greek, some words that are used, draw on Greek terms, and thought, which have no place in scriptures. Like Substituting Grave of the Hebrew, with Hades, of the Greek, which pollutes the thoughts of people with Greek mythologies if not careful. Which has for many. However when Christ was teaching on this, He was clearly drawing from The Hebrew. Ill leave there. I'd give it more thought.

 

[RDKirk]

While there is truth in the statement, its not entirely the full story.
Much of the theology, draws on The Hebrew language and teachings of the OT. Even though they are conveyed in Greek. For doctrines sake, the theology is understood clearly in Hebrew. But in Greek, some words that are used, draw on Greek terms, and thought, which have no place in scriptures. Like Substituting Grave of the Hebrew, with Hades, of the Greek, which pollutes the thoughts of people with Greek mythologies if not careful. Which has for many. However when Christ was teaching on this, He was clearly drawing from The Hebrew. Ill leave there. I'd give it more thought.

Has it occurred to you that the Holy Spirit might have done exactly the right thing, and that the Greek concept of, for instance, Hades, might have been the exact concept the Holy Spirit wanted to be conveyed?

Or is it your contention that the Greek NT scriptures were not actually Holy Spirit inspired at all?

 

[Clare73]

While there is truth in the statement, its not entirely the full story.
Much of the theology, draws on The Hebrew language and teachings of the OT.

Whatever draws from the OT is presented by the apostles in the Greek language, and that is to be our understanding of it.
The OT does not trump the NT in NT doctrine given by the apostles of Jesus Christ.

Even though they are conveyed in Greek. For doctrines sake, the theology is understood clearly in Hebrew. But in Greek, some words that are used, draw on Greek terms, and thought, which have no place in scriptures. Like Substituting Grave of the Hebrew, with Hades, of the Greek, which pollutes the thoughts of people with Greek mythologies if not careful. Which has for many. However when Christ was teaching on this, He was clearly drawing from The Hebrew. Ill leave there. I'd give it more thought.

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

I have a slightly different approach to this subject.
In any language, there are some things that are just a little ambiguous. Take for example in modern English, second person pronoun is "you" and has no way of differentiating singular or plural (it once did with "thee" and "Ye", but has lost this precision.) We can't tell in English if "You" refers to one person or the whole crowd.
In Hebrew, there is some ambiguity about the meaning of "day" ("yom") as in Genesis 1. Some like to argue that this could mean six epochs of time instead of six 24 hour days. Sometimes the Hebrew word "yom" is used each way.
Every language has its limitations.

The solution:
If you have ever read something written by a good lawyer, you will notice that they tend to repeat themselves many times using different words each time. This way, if somebody wants to twist and distort what was meant in one paragraph, the same description written in a different paragraph in different words usually forces the true meaning to survive scrutiny.

Now God, the maker of all languages uses this technique perfectly in scripture. If we allow scripture to be its own self-correcting document, then comparison of one passage with any and all other passages correct our mis-understanding of the passage we are seeking to understand. Notice that all Bible doctrines are mentioned in multiple places in multiple ways. The Law has Deuteronomy (roughly meaning "second Law") as a second copy to make any ambiguity clear. There are four Gospels which we must always compare against each other for understanding.

In the example I cited above, God gives us a clear understanding of how "day" was meant in Genesis 1 when He gave the Ten commandments in Exodus 20 8-11
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."
New American Standard Bible: 1995 update (Ex 20:8–11). (1995). The Lockman Foundation.
Now "day" with respect to the Sabbath defines a week. The reason given for the Sabbath is to remember God's six day creation. God's Word is now clear because we compared passage with passage.
This protects the meaning when the Bible is translated into any language.
Our God is amazing!!

 

[Clare73]

I have a slightly different approach to this subject.
In any language, there are some things that are just a little ambiguous. Take for example in modern English, second person pronoun is "you" and has no way of differentiating singular or plural (it once did with "thee" and "Ye", but has lost this precision.) We can't tell in English if "You" refers to one person or the whole crowd.
In Hebrew, there is some ambiguity about the meaning of "day" ("yom") as in Genesis 1. Some like to argue that this could mean six epochs of time instead of six 24 hour days. Sometimes the Hebrew word "yom" is used each way.
Every language has its limitations.

The solution:
If you have ever read something written by a good lawyer, you will notice that they tend to repeat themselves many times using different words each time. This way, if somebody wants to twist and distort what was meant in one paragraph, the same description written in a different paragraph in different words usually forces the true meaning to survive scrutiny.

Now God, the maker of all languages uses this technique perfectly in scripture. If we allow scripture to be its own self-correcting document, then comparison of one passage with any and all other passages correct our mis-understanding of the passage we are seeking to understand. Notice that all Bible doctrines are mentioned in multiple places in multiple ways. The Law has Deuteronomy (roughly meaning "second Law") as a second copy to make any ambiguity clear. There are four Gospels which we must always compare against each other for understanding.

In the example I cited above, God gives us a clear understanding of how "day" was meant in Genesis 1 when He gave the Ten commandments in Exodus 20 8-11
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."
New American Standard Bible: 1995 update (Ex 20:8–11). (1995). The Lockman Foundation.
Now "day" with respect to the Sabbath defines a week. The reason given for the Sabbath is to remember God's six day creation.
God's Word is now clear because we compared passage with passage.

Actually, the reason given for the Sabbath is God's own rest on the seventh day.
Genesis 2:3 - "And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."
Exodus 34:21 - "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest, even during the plowing and harvest season you must rest."
Deuteronomy 5:13-14 - "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, either you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do."

The OT Sabbath is about rest from work.
In the NT, Jesus Christ is our Sabbath, in whom we rest from our own works to save, and in his completed work which saves (Hebrews 4:1, Hebrews 4:8-11).

This protects the meaning when the Bible is translated into any language.
Our God is amazing!!

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

Dear Clare73

You are very correct that the emphasis is directed at the "rest" on the seventh day, and this is the overwhelming main emphasis. There is another small emphasis in this commandment "six days shall you labor and do all your work" commands Labor and work for six days making for the rest of the week. Work is commanded as well as rest, but the emphasis is clearly to remember God's rest.
The two parts of the commandment definie a week.
My purpose in bringing this up on this thread was to illustrate the self-correcting attribute that Scripture has embedded in it. A topic like the Ten commandments that seems quite different from the Creation account becomes a clarifying and correcting passage aiding us in understanding Genesis 1.

 

[Clare73]

Dear Clare73

You are very correct that the emphasis is directed at the "rest" on the seventh day, and this is the overwhelming main emphasis. There is another small emphasis in this commandment "six days shall you labor and do all your work" commands Labor and work for six days making for the rest of the week. Work is commanded as well as rest, but the emphasis is clearly to remember God's rest.

The two parts of the commandment definie a week.
My purpose in bringing this up on this thread was to illustrate the self-correcting attribute that Scripture has embedded in it. A topic like the Ten commandments that seems quite different from the Creation account becomes a clarifying and correcting passage aiding us in understanding Genesis 1.

Yes. . .and a good observation by you.

Thanks.