You don't need to read in the original language to appreciate and fully understand the Torah and the Bible...

You don't need to read in the original language to appreciate and fully understand the Torah and the Bible, so why would you need to read the Quran in Arabic to appreciate it and fully understand it?

Other urls found in this thread:

doitinhebrew.com/Translate/default.aspx?kb=IL Hebrew Phonetic
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>to appreciate and fully understand the Torah and the Bible

What you're reading in English is the butchered and translated product, for hundreds of years at that. Nobody can deny that the original language of a literature piece is more authentic than a translation. What a dumb thread

> You don't need to read in the original language to appreciate and fully understand the Torah and the Bible
You actually do.

The fuck you smoking? The Torah is still read in ancient Hebrew.

Quick, OP, why is the serpent in the Garden of Eden story the most naked of all the beasts in the field?

Checkmate, mooslims

I don't think most Muslims are versed in classical Arabic but you're right about reading books in their original language is the best way to preserve the original tradition as opposed to dozens of national texts which are sometimes at odds with each other.

With the Bible though there are translations older than the earliest versions in the original languages and are probably less edited as well as a bunch of speculation on where other translations got their sources so it's a lot more complex than the case of the Qur'an.

Trips confirms and first post best post.
Need proof? Define your understanding of the creation story of Genesis as you know it and then look up, just a quick google, what the Hebrew Word that was translated into "day" actually means.
Dumbing down text for the masses is why there have been so many reformations and schisms in Christianity and is why they have been only waves of extremism in Islam

>You don't need to read in the original language to appreciate and fully understand the Torah and the Bible,
Wrong.

>what the Hebrew Word that was translated into "day"


The Hebrew word that gets translated into day is יוֹם, you can see this clearly in Gen 1:5 וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם And God(s) called the light "Day".

I am unaware of any meaning to יוֹם other than "Day"

doitinhebrew.com/Translate/default.aspx?kb=IL Hebrew Phonetic

If you want to criticize Biblical translation, go for it, but that is a dumb as shit objection. There are far, far better ones.

The bible is good precisely because it's made of many books that can be picked and chosen, ignored or misinterpreted at will.
It's basically a sham that can be changed to reflect whatever the fuck happens to be the current state of morality.

Why would I need to read Arabic to wipe my ass?

>You don't need to read in the original language to appreciate and fully understand the Torah and the Bible

Yes you do

>You don't need to read in the original language to appreciate and fully understand the Torah and the Bible.

But the thing is, as this user point out (). You actually do, and not doing so is committing heresy, you are all probably going to hell. There are many, many, MANY passages in BOTH new and old testaments which tell you not to change, not to add, you take the bible and practice at face value. That anyone adding or subtracting to the bible get's his share subtracted from heaven. You will probably call the KJV the 'real' bible.

The King James VERSION.

>a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing.

Keep in mind, there are around 300 VERSIONS of the bible, today.

You all failed, incredibly hard.

>Only people that can read Greek and ancient Hebrew have a chance at getting to heaven

That's what it implies in the bible.

Which is why the apostles gained the ability to speak many languages in order to spread the word....right.

Doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about.

You understand even the apostles made allowances for this? And even realized what they were doing was treading a thin line.

>But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one WE preached to you, let him be accursed.

It's extremely explicit, that's a NT quote, from Galatians. Capitalized we, for reasons. To put it in terms you may understand.

Kings James Version is King James take on the bible. The bible is a bunch of peoples take on Jesus. The thing which is considered canon is the bunch of people talking about Jesus. Not the dude who talks about the people talking about Jesus. You are aware of the huge problems whens translating between works, yeah? Messages are always inherently lost when translating.

"Hebrew"
Any goy should use the Greek vulgate or Latin vulgate. Hebrew is for Jews who want a Jewish reading.

Retarded Christians think that the words they read in the English bible are functionally equivalent to the original intent of the authors.

Historians and everyone not stricken with retardation know better.

This is really the whole problem and is a new school of thought. The monks who did the translating probably were not aware of this problem with translations,l as translating texts was still new and fun.

Just because they could and did doesn't mean they should have and given the knowledge we have today, they probably wouldn't have.

If Jesus preached in Aramaic and the gospels are written in Greek does that mean no one can understand his message?

That's why you should read a bible with good notations.

>Implying those exist.

Go on, show me a single Bible that points out that the word used to describe the snake's cunning/cleverness/subtlety/whatever is the same one that describes Adam and Eve's nakedness and how that should be informing a reading of the Garden of Eden.

>Arguing about biblical text being lost in translation for English
>Book that was written in ancient Hebrew in the Bible is OK to be read in it's Greek and Latin renditions

There should be some kind of continuum of logic if you're going to contribute to the discussion...

>word used to describe the snake's cunning/cleverness/subtlety/whatever is the same one that describes Adam and Eve's nakedness
Explain why that's so important. Also does the word in Greek do that as well or only in Jewbrew?

The New Testament was written in Greek. The Old Testament is irrelevant and only exist to establish Jesus as a messiah figure.

>Explain why that's so important.

Because nakedness is emblematic of a realization of the knowledge of good and evil, a degree of self-awareness (and meta-self-awareness) that was created when you have the Fall. Adam and Eve were naked, and didn't understand the significance of that; it can also be read as Adam and Eve were intelligent, cunning, clever, and subtle, but didn't realize THAT either, because they lived in a state of perpetual innocence and didn't have any sort of need for any of that, since they were in an earthly paradise and God took care of everything for them.

More germanely to the Fall itself, you have the realization that the Serpent isn't just smart and a talking animal, but does understand the difference between Good and Evil (although how is not entirely clear). There are quite a few words in Hebrew that could be used in place of connotations of intelligence, נָבוֹן חָכָם, בַּר דַעַת, מַשׂכִּיל, פִּקֵחַ just off the top of my head, but we have עָרוּם and that was chosen for a reason, to suggest an equivalence between the Serpent and the post-fall state.

>Also does the word in Greek do that as well or only in Jewbrew?

The Greek is a translation, in regards to Genesis. Why do you want the first translation instead of the original?

>The Old Testament is irrelevant and only exist to establish Jesus as a messiah figure

Then why does the only passage that describes a Jesus figure in the OT call for his execution as someone to lead the people of Israel astray?

Respect your opinion, yet the any point in reference to the original one is not apparent.
Why would a book written in Hebrew not have likely losses in meaning between translations to Greek and Latin just like English?

I take this back. . Theologians SHOULD know and teach such things. I'm against literal readings of the Bible and this shows.

>Cherry picks a single verse that predicts the death of Christ
>Ignores every other reference to a Redeemer, savior, and God the Son.

N-no one even wanted a Messiah! T-the apostles set up the whole thing!

I personally feel they have slightly different meanings but this is relevant to the theology.

What you dont trust a number of Greek speakers who probably never met the man to accurately convey his philosophy?

why do you hate God?

ikr. Imagine writing about someone you never personally met. Even *gasp* writing about someone who speaks a different native language from you that you never personally met.


Also for you all know those Greek speakers could have spoken Aramaic as well.

Like I said in my first post,
The books of the Bible should be read in their original language inorder to stop misunderstanding and misrepresentation from causing disconnects in the theology.
I was using the beginning of Genesis and its use of a word that means "period of time" and not "day" and how Christians and Jews are held up as believing the world was created in a single week because of this loss in translation.

Not him, but it's pretty clear there are problems in that department. To pick an example at random, If John was an Aramaic speaker, he wouldn't call Aramaic words Hebrew ones.

>as using the beginning of Genesis and its use of a word that means "period of time" and not "day"

Show me anywhere, Bible or otherwise, where the word יום is used to mean "period of time" and not "Day".

Genesis, chapter 1

Are you SERIOUSLY using the point of text in question to "prove" that the word has a non-standard definition that should then be applied to that point of text? Do you have any idea how retarded that is?

I mean for fuck's sake, at that point, you can arbitrarily define any word to mean anything by insisting that that particular definition is right and points to itself.

The word used is יום. Yom really does mean "day" and not "period of time" ,because the authors intended it to really, actually, simply mean a "day". If you read it in the original language, this is what you would come away with.

No, they intended it to mean period of time, and that's how it was always understood until Protestants began distorting it in the 19th century.

It's no different than some red Indian oral tale when taken to literal meaning.

>No, they intended it to mean period of time,
[citation needed]

>and that's how it was always understood until Protestants began distorting it in the 19th century.

[citation needed]

Especially since this is a thread about the merits of reading something in the original and not in translation. The usage of the word in the Hebrew indicates Day, often in opposition to Night. That's why we read Gen 18:1 as "the heat of the day" instead of "The heat of some indeterminate amount of time", or how Jonah 3:4 has the prophet proclaiming that the city will be destroyed in 40 days, and not 40 indeterminate periods of time, or how in Numbers, 6:9-10, it talks about the steps that a Nazirite has to take specifically 7 and 8 days after the guy died suddenly near him, instead of 7 and 8 indeterminate periods of time.

For all of their problems concerning their backwardness and such, can we at least admit that Arabic is a beautiful as fuck language with the best calligraphy?

It looks cool, I don`t like how it sound tough.

Actually, you kind of have to, which is why it's mandetory for Priests to learn Latin.

>Latin
>The original language of any book of the Bible.

I always found the claim that the Qu'ran is only truly THE QU'RAN if it is read in Arabic to be unconvincing. To me it goes too far and implies there is something ineffable about the Arabic language, but if I'm being fair I don't find this to be the case, not for Arabic nor any other language.
As far as linguistic philosophy goes, there is no idea that you can convey in one language that in turn cannot be conveyed in another language. As Stephen Pinker puts it, there might be such thing as stone age technology, but there's no such thing as a stone age language. I'm not disputing that translations have to make compromises, even sometimes ones that would seem devastating to those who are familiar with the original language, but there is nothing preventing things of this nature from being explained in a commentary.

There is a grain of truth to this line of thinking however. Languages are historically contingent in terms of their lexicon, syntax etc. There is much philological training that goes into reading an ancient text, one aspect of which is learning the language itself. You could learn about the history, hermeneutical approaches, and literary theory surrounding an ancient text and still learn alot about it even without knowing its original language. Of course, knowing Greek or Arabic will give you an edge when dealing with the Qu'ran or the New Testament, but that alone doesn't somehow perfect your ability to understand the text. There's no such thing as perfect understanding of a text anyway.

Saying that the Qu'ran is only the Qu'ran is a theological claim, but I find it to be an irrational one.
Saying that the Bible has God as its ultimate author is also a theological claim, but it is one that doesn't imply that there is anything special about Greek, and therefore does not contradict reason.

I find it funny that some protestants desperately want to apply the same claims that the muslims have on their qu'ran to the bible. They are missing the point imo.

What laguage did Jesus speak, and was He illiterate?

>not using all forms of clean energy

>not creating multiple sectors to grow our economy even more

you sound like a coal cuck with your logic

Mongolia would beg to differ

So many butthurt atheists in this thread, love it.

Aramaic, and no.

Roman Catholicism =/= Biblical Christianity

Both are right in a sense. Obviously a lot changes in a translation because of how languages are. So, some stuff will be lost.

That said, you get the idea well enough. And there are lexicons and other things you can look up to understand all the implications and subtler meanings of a word. Works just fine to read a translation and some are very good at translating the words to keep a lot of the charm of the original. So, it is a shit argument to say that you need to read it in the original language to get it.

Because Islam is a political Arab supremacist movement disguised as a religion.

pseudo intellectuals BTFO

agglutinative languages are CLEARLY primitive and evolve into non agglutinative with time (not always, some times they stay primitive)