Translation vs. Interpretation

Difflugia · Post by **Difflugia** » Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:40 am

When choosing a translation, what kinds of interpretations by the translators are legitimate and what aren't?

Aside from acknowledged paraphrases, most Bible translations present themselves as being some combination of accurate and readable. What kinds of decisions sacrifice accuracy beyond what is reasonable? When is it reasonable for a translator to interpret potentially confusing ambiguity?

Post by **otseng** » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:07 pm

Eloi wrote: Please, go to Matt. 26:67 and check the translation the same way, so you can notice the reason why "some" is added in this other text, since it is the same kind of sintactic construction, and EVEN THOSE TWO versions you mentioned before add the word "some" in this other place. The question is why in one place they do and not in the other one if in both cases it is the same construction.

NABRE Matt. 26:67 with "some" https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... sion=NABRE
New American Bible Matt. 26:67 with "some" http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVZ.HTM

Yes, that is interesting the NAB/NABRE add the word some in Matt 26:67 and omit it in Matt 28:17, even though they are the same construction.

Eloi · Post by **Eloi** » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:21 pm

[Replying to otseng]
There will be always a "scholar" reason when you go deeper to the "why" ... and I think it is unavoidable that ocasionally some translators may be biased, cause the truth is that some texts have more than one way to be translated, and the interpretation is what leads to the translation instead of the contrary as it should be.

In other post I mentioned Dan. 10:21 in Hebrew. This was my comment there:

Dan.10:21 reads:

Dan.10:21 (KJV) â€¯But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Where it said "in these things" could be a little confusing, cause there are two acceptable translations of the original phrasing right there. The other translation is shown here:

Dan. 10:21 (ASV) But I will tell thee that which is inscribed in the writing of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me against these, but Michael your prince.

My post is not about which one of both is the right translation, BUT about the implications of this verse in the doctrine about Michael being Jesus. In both cases the verse support that belief.

1) If the "more exact" translation according to what the inspired writer meant is the one in KJV, that implies that there were NO OTHER spirit creature besides Michael who can understand those things written in the "scriptures of truth".

2) if the other, then that verse implies that NO OTHER spirit creature besides Michael could have been stronger than the angel speaking, against the demonic spiritual forces.

In both cases the verse implies Michael was Jesus before his birth as a human.

In first place, no creature may have had greater knowledge than Jesus in the heavens about any divine writing,

... and secondly, no other than the angel with the name of Jehovah in him, i.e. Jesus himself in his function as Jehovah's angel (Exo. 23:20-23), could have been strong enough to fight and overcome the demonic spiritual forces talked about before in the context of this verse.

viewtopic.php?t=36018

The solution for that is to include in the translation as many footnotes as needed to give to the reader all the variants or possible translations ... which could be a very tedious and expensive task, but it helps a lot.

What do you think about this text in Hebrew?

Post by **otseng** » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:29 pm

Eloi wrote: and I think it is unavoidable that ocasionally some translators may be biased, cause the truth is that some texts have more than one way to be translated, and the interpretation is what leads to the translation instead of the contrary as it should be.

I agree that translation bias is unavoidable.

In both cases the verse implies Michael was Jesus before his birth as a human.

In Jewish thought, Michael was simply an angel that was an advocate for Israel.

According to rabbinic Jewish tradition, Michael acted as the advocate of Israel, and sometimes had to fight with the princes of the other nations (cf. 10:13)

The idea that Michael was the advocate of the Jews became so prevalent that in spite of the rabbinical prohibition against appealing to angels as intermediaries between God and his people, Michael came to occupy a certain place in the Jewish liturgy: "When a man is in need he must pray directly to God, and neither to Michael nor to Gabriel."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)

I view 'no other besides Michael' to mean no other angels had the power to help the angel that spoke to Daniel.

Eloi · Post by **Eloi** » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:52 pm

[Replying to post 43 by otseng]
I was referring to the two differents translation of the text, not to the interpretations ... which is not the topic here.

Dan.10:21 (KJV) â€¯But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Dan. 10:21 (ASV) But I will tell thee that which is inscribed in the writing of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me against these, but Michael your prince.

The expression marked in bold in hebrew can have both meanings, and depending on the translation that would be the way is understood. That was what I meant.

Post by **otseng** » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:19 pm

Eloi wrote: The expression marked in bold in hebrew can have both meanings, and depending on the translation that would be the way is understood. That was what I meant.

I'm just starting to learn Hebrew myself. What I'm discovering is it is a very difficult language to translate. Words often have multiple English meanings, so to just pick one word would not do a Hebrew word justice. If two translations can differ with "in these things" vs "against these", it's close enough for me. Now, to interpret these, like you said, is another matter.

An example is shamar, which is often translated keep.

[Deu 30:10 KJV] 10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep (shamar) his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, [and] if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

Though shamar has the meaning of obey and observe, it also has the meaning of guard, protect, watch over, take care.

Shamar is used in the context of Adam keeping the garden of Eden.

[Gen 2:15 KJV] 15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep (shamar) it.

Shamar is used of messengers watching David.

[1Sa 19:11 KJV] 11 Saul also sent messengers unto David's house, to watch (shamar) him, and to slay him in the morning: and Michal David's wife told him, saying, If thou save not thy life to night, to morrow thou shalt be slain.

Could it be that modern readers place too much emphasis on obeying the law, but needs to balance it with taking care of and watching over the law?

Eloi · Post by **Eloi** » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:22 pm

In Spanish the word guardar has all the meanings that Hebrew word has so we don't really have a problem to translate and understand that word.

Eloi · Post by **Eloi** » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:28 pm

[Replying to post 44 by Eloi]

About Dan.10:21, YES, depending on how that specific expression is translated, the meaning of what the angel told Daniel changes. It is not the same to understand that Michael helped Gabriel (supposily the angel talking to Daniel) to fight against the demonic forces, than he was the only one with him that was capable to understand the things written in the scripture of truth ... two totally different ideas depending on how we translate a single expression in Hebrew.