“The unacknowledged heresy underlying most modern English versions of the Bible is the use of translation as a vehicle for explaining the Bible instead of representing it in another language, and in the most egregious instances this amounts to explaining away the Bible. This impulse may be attributed not only to a rather reduced sense of the philological enterprise but also to a feeling that the Bible, because of its canonical status, has to be made accessible—indeed, transparent—to all. (The one signal exception to all these generalizations is Everett Fox’s 1995 American version of the Torah. Emulating the model of the German translation by Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig [begun in 1925, completed in 1961], which flaunts Hebrew etymologies, preserves nearly all repetitions of Hebrew terms, and invents German words, Fox goes to the opposite extreme: his English has the great virtue of reminding us verse after verse of the strangeness of the Hebrew original, but it does so at the cost of often being not quite English and consequently of becoming a text for study rather than a fluently readable version that conveys the stylistic poise and power of the Hebrew.) Modern translators, in their zeal to uncover the meanings of the biblical text for the instruction of a modern readership, frequently lose sight of how the text intimates its meanings—the distinctive, artfully deployed features of ancient Hebrew prose and poetry that are the instruments for the articulation of all meaning, message, insight, and vision.”
"Everett Fox’s “Translator’s Preface” to “The Five Books of Moses” emphasizes the importance of reading the Bible as a new and unfamiliar text, not as a pre-packaged religious document. Fox aims to draw readers into the world of the Hebrew Bible through the power of its language, rather than simply conveying its meaning in a clear and comfortable manner.
To achieve this, Fox has sought to echo the style of the original Hebrew text, preserving its rhetoric, sound structure, and form. This approach differs significantly from most previous Bible translations, which prioritize clarity and fluency over the original text’s linguistic features.
Fox argues that the Hebrew Bible was meant to be read aloud, and that its translation should reflect this oral nature. By focusing on rhythm, sound, and repetition, the Fox aims to lead readers back to the original Hebrew text’s sound structure and form.
The translation is influenced by the work of Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, who pioneered a similar approach in their German translation of the Bible. However, Fox takes a more moderate view, recognizing the limitations of their principles and incorporating insights from recent scholarship.
Fox also emphasizes the importance of understanding the Bible as an aural document, meant to be read aloud. By analyzing the text’s rhetoric and sound structure, readers can gain a deeper understanding of its ideas and themes.
Overall, Fox highlights the need for a fresh approach to the Bible that emphasizes its original language, sound structure, and oral nature. By focusing on these elements, readers can gain a deeper appreciation for the Bible’s power and meaning."
Meant to be read aloud: If that’s true, then the Hebrew Bible was not intended for a Deaf audience, which is an unacceptable conclusion. However, if one replaces “read aloud” with “shared by any means”, the means increase.
Yeah. Because translation is not the issue but contextual analysis. It’s like asking if my understanding of “some hungry I could eat a horse” survive an English translation. Regardless of what words you choose, it’s still fiction.
With th exception of the atheistic inferences, i like your point here. Its a shame others dont also recognise it. There is no place for religious fiction within evolutionary circles…they are neither compatible nor can they be made to align without compromising either one.
This topics statement articulates that nonesense when it appears to me to state that any bible in english is a mistranslation of original scriptures. Thats insults my intelligence. The fact some here believe that crap, they may as well be flat earthers because such views about scriptural English translation are just as stupid. The only reason these stupid arguments exist is because they must. How else can one explain Matthew 24, Luke 17, 2 peter2 (all of which support a literal historical reading of Genesis 6) from an evolutionary point of view?
If the incarnate God Himself says, just as it was in the days of Noah, they were partying and then a flood came a killed them all, one would have to do some woeful manipulation of scripture to twist the meaning there because Christ is but one of at least 3 other writers who all make the exact same statement! Its clearly not metaphorical or allegorical.
I might also just highlight a perceived error in the O.P…its important to note that biblically, Christ came here to die physcially and spiritually for the wages of sin. We have no salvation unless He died, rose, ascended into heaven and his offering was accepted as sufficient for the wages of sin. That is not an evolutionary process. Anyone who even remotely thinks it has any evolutionary relevance is not getting that from any biblical reference.
Finally, Christ ascended into heaven in Acts 1…He is not currently living among us. The biblical refrences clearly point out, God will only live among us AFTER the Old Testament Sanctuary “scapegoat” has been punished/killed and the earth cleansed. Study the Sanctuary Service then read Revelation 21!
Prompt: You’ve provided a Hebrew translation of the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis.
Request Implied: While you haven’t explicitly asked for anything, I’ll assume you want me to:
Verify the accuracy of the Hebrew translation.
Provide additional context or information about these chapters.
Offer a translation into another language.
Response:
Verification of Hebrew Translation - The Hebrew translation you provided is accurate and aligns with standard Hebrew translations of the Book of Genesis. The text is clear, concise, and adheres to the conventions of Biblical Hebrew.
(Note: There might be slight variations in different Hebrew Bibles or translations due to different textual traditions or translation choices, but the overall meaning and structure remain consistent.
Context and Information
Creation Narrative: These chapters form the foundational creation narrative in Judaism and Christianity. They describe the creation of the universe, humans, and the Garden of Eden.
Theological Significance: The text addresses fundamental questions about the origin of the universe, the nature of God, the relationship between God and humanity, and the concept of sin.
Literary Style: The narrative is written in a poetic and evocative style, using repetition, imagery, and symbolism to convey deep theological meanings.
Additional Notes
Divisions: The Hebrew text is divided into verses and chapters, as indicated by the Hebrew letters {פ} and {ס} at the end of verses and chapters, respectively.
Translations: The Book of Genesis has been translated into numerous languages, and there are many different versions and interpretations available.
Commentary: Countless commentaries and scholarly works have been written on these chapters, exploring their historical, theological, and literary significance.
Prompt: You’ve provided a Hebrew translation of the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis.
Request Implied: While you haven’t explicitly asked for anything, I’ll assume you want me to:
Verify the accuracy of the Hebrew translation.
Provide additional context or information about these chapters.
Offer a translation into another language.
Response:
Verification of the Hebrew Translation - The provided Hebrew text is an accurate translation of the beginning of the Book of Genesis. It aligns with standard Hebrew versions of the biblical text.
Context and Significance - This portion of Genesis lays the foundation for many of the central themes in Judaism and Christianity. It:
Introduces the creation narrative: Describing the creation of the universe, humans, and the Garden of Eden.
Establishes the relationship between God and humanity: Outlining the original state of harmony and the subsequent fall due to disobedience.
Presents foundational concepts: Such as sin, death, and the concept of redemption.
Additional Notes
Literary Style: The narrative is rich in symbolism and allegory, inviting deep theological interpretation.
Cultural Impact: These chapters have had a profound impact on Western culture, philosophy, and theology.
Diverse Interpretations: Over the centuries, there have been numerous interpretations of these chapters, reflecting different theological perspectives and cultural contexts.
Nothing I’ve said is even slightly atheistic. Recognizing many portions of the Bible is fiction is not atheist. It’s just not literalist. It’s not creationist. It’s not many things that ignore common sense and science, but it’s not remotely atheistic.
So yes, mythology and science can go hand in hand because they are not competing.
Sorry but it is atheist. If you truly understood why, you wouldnt make such a claim.
What you ignore is that, THE ENTIRETY OF THE BIBLE IS GODS WORD. DENYING PART OF IT DENIES IT ALL.
The bible makes it quite clear that fence sitting (described as “luke warm” in the book of Revelation 3.16) is an abomination. God will “spew those individuals out of His mouth”!
The point is that internal biblical consistency demands a wholistic reading of scripture. You cant have that by only choosing to believe bits and pieces of it.
Lets just start with an obvious one…the Sabbath commandment.
In six days you shall do all your work, but the seventh is the sabbath. in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested.
No amount of stuffing around with the text changes the statement its a specific single day of the week being worshiped here. Note Christ (God) also worshiped that very same day of the week throughout his incarnate life (30+ years) on this earth! The claim we are no longer required ro keeping the law is rubbish. You dont steal or comitt adultery right? You honour your father and mother right? You keep every law except the Sabbath. Thats not consistent so something is very wrong. Another “non religious” illustration… police expect you to obey ALL the road rules not just the ones you want to keep right?
So “bits and pieces” isnt acceptable even outside of religious belief.
So you’ve insulted me enough I can be blunt. I’m not an atheist. I’m just not stupid enough to believe in something like young earth creationism. I’m not stupid enough to misunderstand and reject science and history. I’m not an atheist. I’m just not stupid enough to believe in some of the dumbest things people can believe in. I don’t reject the Bible. I reject stupid interpretations of the Bible that deceive stupid people.
Please remember that all texts demand interpretation. Biblical scriptures are not an exception. Without interpretation, the text is just strange forms of color.
What you are claiming is that others need to accept a special interpretation (your interpretation) of the scriptures, otherwise they are denying Gods word. I have read at least tens of your comments but not seen a convincing justification for this claim. Citing verses from the Bible is not a sufficient answer to this question because the question is what is the correct way to interpret the biblical scriptures?
Another problematic point of interpretation is how we should understand the other book of God, the book of creation? If both books come from God (God is the Creator), they should give the same general message. Otherwise, our interpretation of one or both books is wrong. If the message in the book of creation conflicts with your interpretation of the biblical scriptures, which one is more reliable, your interpretation or the book of creation?
Unswayed by others, I’m ready for the next phase of little project: translating Fox’s English text into American Sign Language using a method that I came up with when I was an interpreter for the Deaf in my father’s congregation, in San Francisco in the 1970s.
Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence.
It’s a mistranslation because it changes the meaning of the Hebrew word by letting readers think the passage is talking about a globe.
The Jewish translations I’m aware of don’t make this mistake but correctly render it as “the land was filled with violence”.
Nope – that shows a dismal understanding of how people then (and now) referenced literature. A pastor today might say, “As it was when Harry Potter survived Voldemort’s attack” and everyone would understand the reference even though everyone would understand that the Harry Potter stories are fiction.
Stop claiming things about the scriptures that they do not say.
Jesus disagrees. He said He is with us always to the end of the age, and He said when two or three of us gather in His name He is there.
No. I would say that God hates and despises your sanctuary service because you elevate it above God the Son, which is idolatry. Christ is the reality; the sanctuary service was just a shadow of Him.
That doesn’t apply to anything he wrote. Indeed it shows serious ignorance of the scriptures as ancient literature, which is what they are. If God makes up some fiction, it has just as much authority as if He provided some history – to say otherwise is to set up a standard higher than God that He is required to follow.
And in fact we know that God uses fiction to teach – parables are fiction designed to make a point, and both the prophets and Jesus used parables. So to say that parts of the scriptures are fiction has no bearing on whether those parts are God’s word.
A holistic reading of scripture does not mean none of it can be fiction.
False accusation – he made no such assertion.
Nor stupid enough to think that God let His spokesmen lie when they told us that Creation tells us about Him.
Very nice! For those who understand how ancient storytelling was done, that really brings out the fact that the opening Creation accounts are story. The way the text is rendered fills my imagination with the movements and gestures of a storyteller making the whole thing come alive for the audience.
I would just change one thing in the opening: rather than “God said, Let there be light! And there was light” I would render it, “God said, Light – be! And light was” because it catches the flavor of the story better.
Based on my observation of the effectiveness of human inspection on a production line. A very careful human inspector will only find 90% of the defects that they should find.
Can you provide an example of a non-trivial single human effort which doesn’t include an element of chance that can be performed perfectly? I wouldn’t include pitching a perfect baseball game for example as that is a team effort even if the lion’s share of the work is done by the pitcher.
