Why do so called interpreters who 'translate' the Word of God actually pervert it?

[Nux]

I'm going through a deep disappointment now, because of the fact, at least I believe so, that there are actually no faithful translation of the Word of God available to me. I've tried every kind of them starting from NIV and up to the so called 'word-to-word' LEB or YLT98. And do you know what? Even that last ones are not 'word-to-word'... And I'm not talking about some deep and complex matters, because I don't know Hebrew or NT Greek well enough to dive into them. But listen, why don't they translate the original words seemingly through the whole OT, to help readers to know what the original meaning is, like the devoted interpreters, as I believe, must do? Let's take, for example, the way LEB translates the 'soul' h5315. Here is the link to the Strong's Lexicon H5315 - nep̄eš - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) so that everybody can check. Why, although it is commonly translated like 'soul', they've chosen 'creature' to be placed instead in Genesis? This is definitely not what is called translation. Why do they twist and darken the meaning of the Word of God?

 

[LeGato]

The NIV is one of the worst of them. I use KJV, weird for a Lutheran, i know.

 

[HTacianas]

I'm going through a deep disappointment now, because of the fact, at least I believe so, that there are actually no faithful translation of the Word of God available to me. I've tried every kind of them starting from NIV and up to the so called 'word-to-word' LEB or YLT98. And do you know what? Even that last ones are not 'word-to-word'... And I'm not talking about some deep and complex matters, because I don't know Hebrew or NT Greek well enough to dive into them. But listen, why don't they translate the original words seemingly through the whole OT, to help readers to know what the original meaning is, like the devoted interpreters, as I believe, must do? Let's take, for example, the way LEB translates the 'soul' h5315. Here is the link to the Strong's Lexicon H5315 - nep̄eš - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) so that everybody can check. Why, although it is commonly translated like 'soul', they've chosen 'creature' to be placed instead in Genesis? This is definitely not what is called translation. Why do they twist and darken the meaning of the Word of God?

That the same word can have two different meanings is not unusual. By itself, that is not reason to reject any particular translation.

 

[public hermit]

I'm going through a deep disappointment now, because of the fact, at least I believe so, that there are actually no faithful translation of the Word of God available to me. I've tried every kind of them starting from NIV and up to the so called 'word-to-word' LEB or YLT98. And do you know what? Even that last ones are not 'word-to-word'... And I'm not talking about some deep and complex matters, because I don't know Hebrew or NT Greek well enough to dive into them. But listen, why don't they translate the original words seemingly through the whole OT, to help readers to know what the original meaning is, like the devoted interpreters, as I believe, must do? Let's take, for example, the way LEB translates the 'soul' h5315. Here is the link to the Strong's Lexicon H5315 - nep̄eš - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) so that everybody can check. Why, although it is commonly translated like 'soul', they've chosen 'creature' to be placed instead in Genesis? This is definitely not what is called translation. Why do they twist and darken the meaning of the Word of God?

That ("creature" or "living being") is not a bad translation of nephesh. The problem is that different languages do not always translate word-for-word, so your expectation that they should is inordinate. A word in Hebrew can have nuance that allows for translating it with different words in English; sometimes it depends on context.

Strong's Hebrew: 5315. נָ֫פֶשׁ (nephesh) -- a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion

 

[trophy33]

I'm going through a deep disappointment now, because of the fact, at least I believe so, that there are actually no faithful translation of the Word of God available to me. I've tried every kind of them starting from NIV and up to the so called 'word-to-word' LEB or YLT98. And do you know what? Even that last ones are not 'word-to-word'... And I'm not talking about some deep and complex matters, because I don't know Hebrew or NT Greek well enough to dive into them. But listen, why don't they translate the original words seemingly through the whole OT, to help readers to know what the original meaning is, like the devoted interpreters, as I believe, must do? Let's take, for example, the way LEB translates the 'soul' h5315. Here is the link to the Strong's Lexicon H5315 - nep̄eš - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) so that everybody can check. Why, although it is commonly translated like 'soul', they've chosen 'creature' to be placed instead in Genesis? This is definitely not what is called translation. Why do they twist and darken the meaning of the Word of God?

There are thousands of common English words that can be translated to other languages in different ways, depending on the context.
You can try it on translate.google.com and play with it.

And biblical languages are no exception. To pick just one meaning of many and force it to any context would produce a bad translation. On the other hand, with any translation, you rely on opinions of others, so you may want to learn to read Greek, if you do not like any translation.

 

[SuperCow]

That the same word can have two different meanings is not unusual. By itself, that is not reason to reject any particular translation.

I was in a jam, as I was in a rush to get to my band’s jam session, because they were trying to jam through their next hit on our album. On my way I got stuck in a traffic jam, so I ate a jam sandwich in the car, looked to my left and noticed there was something wrong with the door jam.

Now translate that paragraph word for word into Hebrew.

 

[dzheremi]

Every time I read or hear an argument like this I can't help but think that the popular Coptic saying "the letter kills" is one of the smartest things they've taught me so far. Yeesh.

It's not a perversion not to follow a literalist idea of the Biblical Hebrew, particularly in the context of Christianity, where before the modern era the reliance on Hebrew manuscripts was incredibly anomalous. There was St. Jerome and maybe a few others (Origen, if he counts? I mean, he produced the Hexpla, so you know he was serious about Hebrew), but most of Christianity got its OT in the form that it did from the Septuagint, which was itself already a partial translation ('partial' because it preserves some works that are thought to have been originally composed in Greek as products of Hellenized Judaism, rather than in Hebrew or Aramaic). Yet that is also the form more often quoted in the NT by the apostles themselves, so if anything we ought to be doing the same, if it's all about keeping to what was originally said. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I'm going through a deep disappointment now, because of the fact, at least I believe so, that there are actually no faithful translation of the Word of God available to me. I've tried every kind of them starting from NIV and up to the so called 'word-to-word' LEB or YLT98. And do you know what? Even that last ones are not 'word-to-word'... And I'm not talking about some deep and complex matters, because I don't know Hebrew or NT Greek well enough to dive into them. But listen, why don't they translate the original words seemingly through the whole OT, to help readers to know what the original meaning is, like the devoted interpreters, as I believe, must do? Let's take, for example, the way LEB translates the 'soul' h5315. Here is the link to the Strong's Lexicon H5315 - nep̄eš - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) so that everybody can check. Why, although it is commonly translated like 'soul', they've chosen 'creature' to be placed instead in Genesis? This is definitely not what is called translation. Why do they twist and darken the meaning of the Word of God?

Online Greek Interlinear Bible
Interlinear Bible: Greek, Hebrew, Transliterated, English, Strong's
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/
https://netbible.com/
google wuest bible translation online
google rating list bible translation online

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm going through a deep disappointment now, because of the fact, at least I believe so, that there are actually no faithful translation of the Word of God available to me. I've tried every kind of them starting from NIV and up to the so called 'word-to-word' LEB or YLT98. And do you know what? Even that last ones are not 'word-to-word'... And I'm not talking about some deep and complex matters, because I don't know Hebrew or NT Greek well enough to dive into them. But listen, why don't they translate the original words seemingly through the whole OT, to help readers to know what the original meaning is, like the devoted interpreters, as I believe, must do? Let's take, for example, the way LEB translates the 'soul' h5315. Here is the link to the Strong's Lexicon H5315 - nep̄eš - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) so that everybody can check. Why, although it is commonly translated like 'soul', they've chosen 'creature' to be placed instead in Genesis? This is definitely not what is called translation. Why do they twist and darken the meaning of the Word of God?

Nux, there's a lot that goes on linguistically when translators in any project attempt to translate the Bible. The first hermeneutical hurdle comes in the fact that we don't have any of the original biblical documents, and what we do have thousands of years later are comparative compilations of copies of copies of various 'families' of texts. To say that our current translations are all deficient is to imply that we have a perfect baseline form which to draw from in the first place, but we actually don't.

Add to this that different translators in different creative teams for various versions have attempted purposely to use different interpretive equivalencies in the translation process since languages don't necessarily match up in conceptual nor grammatical structures, and it's no wonder we have the number of translations that we do.

Have you read any scholarly books on the hermeneutical processes and linguistic difficulties that are involved in the work of various biblical translation teams and/or individual scholars?

 

[Nux]

The NIV is one of the worst of them. I use KJV, weird for a Lutheran, i know.

Yep, NIV is defenitely not for studying. Among them all I prefer LEB and YLT98, although they are far from perfection. But KJV is worser than they. Follow this link H5315 - nep̄eš - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) and see how differently, depending on context, it translates in Genesis the same word 'soul'. And morover the Holy Name of God is blot out of it. Don't wanna use such translation.

 

[Nux]

Have you read any scholarly books on the hermeneutical processes and linguistic difficulties that are involved in the work of various biblical translation teams and/or individual scholars?

Thanks for the reply but when I speak about this matters it always turns out the same 'Do you have a degree in Hebrew/Greek?'. Obviously I don't. But you actually don't need it to perform a simple check and to see what word original uses and how it corresponds to a translation. This is what Strong's was created for.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for reply but when I speak about this matters it always turns the same 'Do you have a degree in Hebrew/Greek?'. Obviously I don't. But you actually don't need it to perform a simple check and to see what word original uses and how it corresponds to translation. This is what Strong's was created for.

Well, you kind of do because translation ISN'T a matter of singular words, but rather one of translating full concepts and ideas that come through complete sentences, all of which have their own rules of grammar and syntax. It's not a matter of picking one word at a time and 'translating' it successively. That's not how translation works. In fact, every act of translation involves some amount of interpretation. So, every translation is a form of interpretation as well.

 

[Nux]

That ("creature" or "living being") is not a bad translation of nephesh. The problem is that different languages do not always translate word-for-word, so your expectation that they should is inordinate. A word in Hebrew can have nuance that allows for translating it with different words in English; sometimes it depends on context.

Strong's Hebrew: 5315. נָ֫פֶשׁ (nephesh) -- a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion

Don't wanna argue but God created 'soul', not 'emotion' or 'appetite'. This is not something abstract although it can't be seen. Our soul descends to sheol, is kept there untill the coming of Jesus who will deliver it. Turn 'soul' into 'creature' or 'appetite' is not a translation, it's, taking into account the importance of the matter, rather a way to blur the meaning of the message.

 

[TedT]

Why do they twist and darken the meaning of the Word of God?

I don't think they think they are doing that. Rather, I think they believe they are illuminating the truth of the Bible as they see it. Iow, they present their interpretation as fact to forestall a reader from seeing or accepting some other denomination's interpretation.

Like where the KJV translates the clear world RETURN as its opposite, are turned into: Ps 9:17 The wicked will RETURN to Sheol—all the nations who forget God. Other so called translations use go down to rather than are turned into or the actual word used, to return.

See how it works? If you have an agenda, you get to translate anything to fit your pov, sigh. The trick is to find their agenda, like denying animals have souls, and then making up your own mind about what is written.

 

[Nux]

Well, you kind of do because translation ISN'T a matter of singular words, but rather one of translating full concepts and ideas that come through complete sentences, all of which have their own rules of grammar and syntax. It's not a matter of picking one word at a time and 'translating' it successively. That's not how translation works. In fact, every act of translation involves some amount of interpretation. So, every translation is a form of interpretation as well.

Yep, that's why I no longer regard translations as the Word of God or scriptures. They are rather a helpful tool and nothing more. Every important matter must be checked against original.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep, that's why I no longer regard translations as the Word of God or scriptures. They are rather a helpful tool and nothing more. Every important matter must be checked against original.

And we don't have the original. So, how do we 'know' that translations of the Bible are "deviant" in nature if we have no original?

 

[Nux]

Well, you kind of do because translation ISN'T a matter of singular words, but rather one of translating full concepts and ideas that come through complete sentences, all of which have their own rules of grammar and syntax. It's not a matter of picking one word at a time and 'translating' it successively. That's not how translation works. In fact, every act of translation involves some amount of interpretation. So, every translation is a form of interpretation as well.

And, by the way, how many foreign languages have you studied for the whole your life?)) I'm curious because I'm not an English speaker and know for sure and not from the forums what translation actually is))

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And, by the way, how many foreign languages have you studied for the whole your life?)) I'm curious because I'm not an English speaker and know for sure and not from the forums what translation actually is))

I studied Spanish twenty years ago when I was in college, but my wife, being formerly from Russia, is actually Bi-lingual, fluent in both Russian and English and she is literate in Spanish. So, I've had her translation insights to draw from over the years, along with the little I studied in college, capped with my basic studies about Biblical translation and hermeneutics.

 

[Nux]

And we don't have the original. So, how do we 'know' that translations of the Bible are "deviant" in nature if we have no original?

We got interlinear)) H5315 - nep̄eš - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) It's obvious that the same word is treated differentrly in the same context. See it, think thoroughly, and we'll have a good time meditating on the Word of God))

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We've got interlinear)) H5315 - nep̄eš - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) It's obvious that the same word is treated differentrly in the same context. See it, think thoroughly, and we'll have a good time meditating on the Word of God))

If we actually had ultra-literal translations, what we'd end up with in English would be a cacophany of failed syntax and failed grammar that wouldn't make much sense. So, no translation from an ancient (dead?) language into modern English or Ukrainian can be presented in an ultra-literal fashion.

On a basic level, what biblical translators attempt to do (and I say "attempt") is to work within one of the following translation philosophies, sometimes with varying efficacy and varying degrees of success:

The Difference between Literal and Dynamic Translations of the Bible

But there's a lot more to it all than just this even.