Divine Civil Suit

[Doomie]

I'm not speaking about any religion or it's authoritative text in particular, but religions in general, when I ask the following question:

"Could [we] be in danger of divine misrepresentation of religious quotes that were supposedly made by prophets, avatars, etc?"

From my understanding, it is grammatically impossible to translate from one language to another, without either adding to, or taking away from, the text. Yet most of what we build our lives upon is translated teachings.

Now, I agree that most of what we read goes to common sense, i.e. not killing each other, and treating others the way you want to be treated. But how often do we beat each other up with actual quotes that were supposedly said by the one we have chosen to follow or pattern ourselves after?

If it is true that one language cannot be translated word for word into another language, then the only way to know for sure what the person actually said, in the context it was said, is to learn the language that it was originally spoken - I would think. I'm not spooky, but if there really is a Great Day Of Reckoning for all humanity, how silly/horrified will most of us be when our "Representative" stands before us and says, "I never said this/that. You twisted what I said. You're a liar."

Just wondering....

[dadburnett]

IMHO we are not in dagner of ... "misrepresentation" of religious quotes and whatever people say and write is a fact of life. Learning another's language (and culture, experiences, bias and point of view) woul indeed help but would not eliminate or misunderstand and misrepresentation. So, having said that, my question is simply what are people so quick to rush to judgment, to react to what they think they read or heard?
Me too, just wondering ...

[Doomie]

dadburnett:

I often wonder the same thing. My question stems from people I have encounter who bash others, and justify it by saying that it's because of what's written or someone supposedly said. People have been beaten, tortured, and/or killed because of what my very well be a misquote or something taken out of context [lost in translation].

[Ruv Draba]

Even in the same language, our normal secular quotes are taken out of context, misrepresented, reinterpreted and misremembered.

Religions have great difficulty keeping their scriptures consistent over time, and religions themselves find it hard to remain of a mind about what they mean. History shows us that religious opinion divides within one or two generations of a religion being founded, and sects then form -- even when the religion is kept in the same language. Every major religion and all of the minor ones I've ever heard of, have experienced this.

Some skeptics like me see this as evidence that religious scriptures have no innate moral authority at all.

[Bartholomew]

Take a controversial line from the King James Bible: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18

How many people have taken this as fact?

But there are two things a discerning Christian must realize about this line: (1 - King James had a serious prejudice against witches, (real and imagined), (2 - The hebrew line of this verse uses the word m'khashepah, which literally means a woman who uses black magic to harm other people.

Even discounting that, one couldn't take the King James version of this verse literally. When the Bible was written, Wicca did not exist, and therefore "Witch" would almost certainly have to mean something other than "a practitioner of Wicca."

"Could [we] be in danger of divine misrepresentation of religious quotes that were supposedly made by prophets, avatars, etc?"


If they're translating m'khashepah as witch, I'd say we have met the enemy, sir.

I'd love to see an annotated Bible with explanations about each verse, given by experts of its various original languages, rather than by preachers. I'm sure this exists somewhere, but I've never thought of it before.

[Doomie]

Thanks, Bartholomew. That's my point. So many have suffered because of what people take to be truth, not knowing that the "truth" is a bad translation. When you speak up, you're misunderstood to be against the Word Of God.

My question is: "How do you know for sure that it is the actual word, if this is the basis for persecution, murder, etc?"

Again, this is not about any one religion in particular.

[Roger J Carlson]

If scriptures are just funny stories written by people, then we can't.

If, on the other hand, they are written under the direction of a Deity powerful enough to be worthy of the name, then presumably that Deity can also ensure that the translation also says what He/She/It wanted it to mean in the original language.

[III]

I'd love to see an annotated Bible with explanations about each verse, given by experts of its various original languages, rather than by preachers. I'm sure this exists somewhere, but I've never thought of it before.

That'd be Bible Commentaries and there are thousands of them (although not all of them agree on the interpretation they're pretty fascinating to read). Of course now that we have Google and word search capabilities, our generation can do in-depth study on any passage that other generations never even dreamed of.

As far as misinterpreting, I liken it to the advice I give new database programmers - By learning 10% of what SQL can do, you can do 90% of what you want to do. I think if you understand and actually apply 10% of the Bible (for example) you've got the big picture. God exists and loves us and his command is for us to love him and each other. If that foundation is solid, you can build on it by studying language and hermeneutics and history and apologetics and grow in maturity. Unfortunately, for many people, they're concerned about building the 20th floor while they ignore the foundation. I think Love is the ultimate measuring stick (and really the reason for life) ... all the other stuff is just the result of whether we really have love in our hearts or if we're just building ourselves up.

[AMCrenshaw]

Some skeptics like me see this as evidence that religious scriptures have no innate moral authority at all.

And no human being has innate moral authority -- authority is given to a thing and some religious scripture tries to give itself authority of all kinds. For example, the Hindus have vedic language; the Judeo-Christian route has adamic language; each is a tongue closest to the origins of all-things and in the case of vedic language, it is the language of the universe itself. What it says must be true. Adamic language is given yet another push in the New Testament by equating the Word with God, a very presocratic thing to do if you ask me.

That said, whether or not God wrote the Bible and whether or not what the Bible says is true, we cannot judge a book by the actions of those who consider it sacred, since we all know that any act of reading is an act of interpretation before it is a full-fledged action. Which isn't the question, really.

We are in danger at all times of misinterpreting "facts" for ill-conceived reasons. That faith is to be considered beyond factual I would think only heightens the potential for dangerous actions -- that is, the conviction in, say, Darwin's theory of evolution, is a different breed entirely from that of the conviction of endless cycles of rebirth and karmic justice. Yet both tend to similar phenomenon: evolutionary, constant change. In Buddhism there is no progression unless you're on the path. In science, there isn't supposed to be some neoplatonic value-progression at all (at least the way I understand it).

Sacred books -- unlike science -- try to resist inevitable change; they are "timeless" because the "author" wrote it before "time" existed. Yet as change is a fact of life, it would seem logical that our moral authorities would have to change or the morality conveyed by these same moral authorities would have to change.

I think certain religious folk see that, and, with that understanding, I also think that the potential danger of actions stemming from faith in sacred texts will eventually diminish from disuse.



AMC

[Bartholomew]

If scriptures are just funny stories written by people, then we can't.

If, on the other hand, they are written under the direction of a Deity powerful enough to be worthy of the name, then presumably that Deity can also ensure that the translation also says what He/She/It wanted it to mean in the original language.

So, assuming the second item you listed, God wants people to hate Wiccans as well as m'khashepah, and both versions are correct?

[AMCrenshaw]

And then to mix this with other contrary passages?

Lev. 18:

"Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD"


AMC

[Roger J Carlson]

I thought we were talking about no particular religion.

[AMCrenshaw]

I thought we were talking about no particular religion.

And now I used an example.



AMC

[Bartholomew]

I thought we were talking about no particular religion.

And now we used an example.



AMC

I'd really like to stay on the topic of bad translations, rather than jumping on holy books because of any supposed contradictions. Contradictions should get its own thread. There's no reason to dogpile on Carlson.

[Bartholomew]

Just to be fair, let me beat up my own religion for a moment.

Most Buddhists are aware of, if they do not adhere to, the four noble truths.

If you don't know, these are traditionally translated as:
(1 - Suffering
(2 - The Origin of Suffering
(3 - The Cessation of Suffering
(3 - The Path Leading to the Cessation of Suffering.

Needless to say, the word in place of "Suffering" in Sanskrit is vital. And of course, the word Dukkha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha) has no exact translation.

Suffering is a very strong word in English, but Dukkha could apparently have connotations of dissatisfaction (in the manner in which Elvis sang about them, perhaps, with tears streaming down his face.)

I was very interested when I heard THIS translation, though:

(1 - Unhappiness
(2 - How it comes about
(3 - Happiness
(4 - How it comes about

This is a core teaching in Buddhism, and how it is translated could very well lead to someone not getting it.

[AMCrenshaw]

Sorry -- I thought translation was involved interpretation-- your Buddhism translation is a good example. Another is the work of Heraclitus; when his fragments are arranged thematically, rather than in some more objective manner (by section of the book), translators have taken the liberty of fitting words and concepts together. It's a good exercise in making sense of fragments, but also good to remember that the translations are fairly interpretative.

And interpretation is usually best (most complete) when it is done in respect to those things that have come before and after it. But, I'll follow suit to make you happy, Barto.


There's no reason to dogpile on Carlson.

Is that I was doing?



Let's use your first example, then. "Witch" is not "a woman who uses black magic to harm other people" -- what is a concise English translation of m'khashepah? And how would you propose one accurately represent it in a text?



AMC

[Bartholomew]

Sorry -- I thought translation was involved interpretation-- your Buddhism translation is a good example. Another is the work of Heraclitus; when his fragments are arranged thematically, rather than in some more objective manner (by section of the book), translators have taken the liberty of fitting words and concepts together. It's a good exercise in making sense of fragments, but also good to remember that the translations are fairly interpretative.

And interpretation is usually best (most complete) when it is done in respect to those things that have come before and after it. But, I'll follow suit to make you happy, Barto.



Is that I was doing?



Let's use your first example, then. "Witch" is not "a woman who uses black magic to harm other people" -- what is a concise English translation of m'khashepah? And how would you propose one accurately represent it in a text?



AMC

Personally, I would have translated it as "Evil Sorceress" -- The Hebrew word is (Unless I am mistaken, which is possible) specifically in the feminine form, and I believe the word implies consistently bad intentions with her magic. Witches, on the other hand, are either male or female, and most Wiccans frown deeply at using magic for evil means.

##

I don't think you meant to dogpile, but I think that it could easily feel that way, since we both came out with Biblical examples, and I'd really like to not leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth. Sorry? :(

[Roger J Carlson]

I didn't feel dogpiled. But I have my own ideas about why the Bible (in particular) has been translated correctly, and I've already stated it here and elsewhere.

And I too would rather this didn't devolve into yet another "inconsistencies in the Bible" thread -- at least in terms of content. Inconsistencies in terms of translation, however, seems on topic. Since I don't know any other languages, I'm not qualified to deal with the linguistic issues, and I won't.

[AMCrenshaw]

"Evil Sorceress"

do you think this translation would have been better? were wiccans seen or perceived as evil sorceresses or are you saying 'it would have just been women then' (as opposed to strictly all wiccans?


AMC

[Doomie]

I certainly don't mean to harp on the Bible , but perhaps Roger has offered a viable explanation to all those who belileve the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies:

There are many [I]"books" within the Book. Perhaps the inconsistencies have more to do with poor translations than it does actual contradicitions. It could certainly be argued that not everyone associated with the transcription of the Bible was a literary scholar. Just a thought....

But there have been some interesting posts regarding the original question. I'm one that do not believe in persecuting another based upon what's written. Only because I can't say for sure if that is EXACTLY what God said do or not do. I'm not spooky, but that's too risky for me.

[Bartholomew]

do you think this translation would have been better? were wiccans seen or perceived as evil sorceresses or are you saying 'it would have just been women then' (as opposed to strictly all wiccans?


AMC

Wiccans didn't exist when Exodus was written, so the word "Witch" is a very poor word choice.

Evil Sorceress would be a more accurate translation in my opinion; I'd still be damn careful about who I put to death. Who defines "evil?"

The problem, to me, is really one of semantics, since many people hear "Witch" and think of a green-skinned hag in a pointy hat who tries to cook children in her oven.

I believe the verse is talking about corrupted spell-casters, serving some evil entity for the sake of being evil. I also believe that it was a time of rampant sexism, at least compared to US culture.

If I encountered an individual whose mind was so foggy that he believed he must serve some dark demon, and who felt compelled to commit evil acts, I would be sorely tempted to put him out of his misery. "Don't suffer an evil sorceress to live" makes me think that they believed such a person needed to be put down for their own sake, and for the sake of society. But there's also a nasty implication about the nature of women, too, if you go with my translation, and that doesn't jibe well with me.

[Ruv Draba]

If, on the other hand, they are written under the direction of a Deity powerful enough to be worthy of the name, then presumably that Deity can also ensure that the translation also says what He/She/It wanted it to mean in the original language.Indeed! You'd expect that a deity could write as well as the author of a decent text-book or reference, say... which makes theological divisions between sects (especially violent divisions) look a bit odd.

Are accidental errors acceptable? I'd think not. Is deliberate misinterpretation acceptable? Maybe, but I'm dubious. Surely, a compassionate being who cared enough to say something once would care enough to clarify and re-assert the same guidance with emphasis, frequently. That's no more than a good teacher does, after all.

Regardless of any claims about the deity (such claims being hard to prove), there's the question of whether the religious lore itself is worthwhile in the first place. Steeped as I am in humanistic free-thinkage I'd suggest assessing a religion on the clarity, consistency, relevance, accuracy, applicability and usability of its lore, the consistency of its moral and ethical advice with our best understanding of humanity, and the ability of its devotees to put the lore into consistent, effective and compassionate practice, using its written and oral traditions.

When I do that alas, I'm not swayed that there's a stand-out best religion. None of the religious prophecies I've seen or heard of are impressive enough to catch scientific attention, and while I think there's some good wisdom in most religions, I feel that its value is comparable to the wisdom we've found in secular thinkers. Moreover, I can't think of a religious text that meets my 'good as a text-book' criterion.

Religions aren't all the same. There are certainly some horror religions that treat people abominably. I can't see a stand-out best though. I wonder whether it comes down to personal preferences and local customs in the end.

[AMCrenshaw]

1) personal preferences and local customs, probably. i personally could pick out a favorite (zen -- I like the mix between tao and buddhism) but you don't see me in a monastery!

2) "religious" or "sacred" text? There have been plenty of Christian, religious texts that are not considered sacred. Some are quite helpful!

I think there are followers of certain religions (Thich Naht Hanh, Soren Kierkegaard, Gandhi) who proved that you can find clarity, consistency, relevance, accuracy, applicability and usability in their lore. We're not all of the same personality type; a reference book isn't going to do much for me in the way of imparting wisdom or how-tos about my life or living. Neither can I from the outside, say, well, Thomas Merton, you haven't submitted yourself absolutely, or else why are you suffering evil sorceresses to live? Teeky, don't you realize you believe in a religion in which there are extra-supernatural-dimensions? Isn't that insane? How could you submit to that absolutely? -- all the while they've reconciled the fact they're reading ancient texts with mythological qualities. It doesn't seem to matter -- who will call these followers unethical? Dangerous?

Experience and growing is much more eclectic that that, which is also the reason I think those religious followers I pointed out above found inspiration and contemplation in other sources besides their faith's sacred texts.


AMC

[semilargeintestine]

The Hebrew language has been butchered and tortured for millenia. The Tanakh has been translated into English, Greek, Latin, etc. etc., and it really does not do it justice. Ancient Hebrew is a language of subtlety and hidden meanings. Each letter and word has multiple meanings and connections to other letters and words. To translate into English all that even the first letter of the Bible means would take an entire book.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Considering all the different religions, and the vast number of sects within these religions, and how only one, if any, could be right on all accounts... I can't understand how people still throw Pascals Wager at atheists as if it holds any weight.

[Bartholomew]

To translate into English all that even the first letter of the Bible means would take an entire book.

I think we could over-analyze any text.

[semilargeintestine]

Yes, but I'm not talking about over-analyzing. I'm talking about the multiple levels of meaning in the Hebrew words and letters. Big difference.

[Doomie]

I agree.Yes, but I'm not talking about over-analyzing. I'm talking about the multiple levels of meaning in the Hebrew words and letters. Big difference.