Bible (Page 2)

Date: 16-12-2010 2:06 pm (14 years ago) | Author: abdulrahaman abdulnsir
1 [2] 3
- mubaji at 2-01-2011 09:52 PM (14 years ago)
(m)
@ chik001

starting from where you ended, what spiritual-endowment do you expect to get from Qur'an whenever you read those fake translations of yours; even if you read the real translation you will not get such because you don’t deserve it. I’ll advise you to relief yourself the stress of looking for spiritual endowment after reciting the ONLY RESERVED HOLY BOOK, you won't get it until you abstain from habits like blackmailing the PROPHET OF ISLAM AND MUSLIMS, HAMPERING THE PROPAGTION OF ISLAM, READING ORIENTALIST BOOKS, e.t.c. without that, you shan't be endowed spiritually.

neverthelss, i will not mind to tell you that your case is like that of abu Lahab  who heard many verses of the Holy-Qur'an but never repent despite the fact that a chapter at whole talks of him and informs him of his perishing in this life and the hereafter. he finally perished in this life and will surelly land in hell on the DAY OF RESURRECTION. read more of Qur'anic verses so you would not have a say on The Day Judgment that you were not opportuned to hear THE MESSENGER'S CALL.

Back to one of your proofs, it seems you haven't come by the story walid bn Mugiira in those orientalist pile-books of yours, or you avoid it beacause it's not of your interest, but i won't mind to remind you. walid was a delegate from quraish to negotiate with prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) at the early years of HIS MESSAGE. after speaking to the Prophet (P.B.U.H), the Prophet (P.B.U.H) replied with verses from the Holy Qur'an; walid stopped him when HE got to an extent, went back to his people and made a comment (no Muslim even made such) "Verily, it (he meant the verses of the HOLY QUR'AN) has sweetness, infact it is charming, it's fruitful from above i.e it's like a fruity tree which everyone gives an eye-twinkle or yearns for,  below it is leafy too (meaning:it's like a leafy free which everone seeks it's shade), it certainly supercedes other sayings; definitely this is not a Human-saying".

this is just an instance among countless instances where non-muslims testify to the credibility of Qur'an.

mind you, i'm not writing all these lines for you to believe in Islam, i'm only doing this for the sake of telling facts about the Holy Qur'an and Prophet Muhammd (P.B.U.H) so i could be free from the punishment for those who keep truths and watch false spread on the land.

concerning your like, an-Nadr ibn al-Harith, do you know people just listened to him but never believed in him; he never for once said he was calling to a religion, he only tell those tales of kaliila wa dimna (it's called so in arabic but you referred to it as persian tales) to display his intellect, to disproof Prophet Muhammd (P.B.U.H) and  to hamper the fast spreading of Islam in the Arabian Penisula. unfortunately, he failed in that devilish bid of his and finally perished, his likes shall continue to fail and perish too.

i don't want to be bored, so let me stop here.
waiting for your response.
[/b]
Posted: at 2-01-2011 09:52 PM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- chik001 at 2-01-2011 11:28 PM (14 years ago)
(m)
you must like the word "blackmail"...
No one is blackmailing anyone here...as I have said earlier somewhere on this site...gone are the days the validity of the Koranic writings hidden in Arabic text...
Now we don't need to learn Arabic or meet people " like you" to know the true content of Islamic texts...or fear to ask critical questions so as not to be killed.
You talk of real translation...
Which is the real translation....Abu Bakr... 'Uthman or The  Hafs version...probably the Imam Warsh version...or the Hausa and English version siting under my pile of "oriental" books...?

I have piles and piles of your "oriental books" and the Internet to tell me all I need to know about Islam and The Koran...Sources, Variant Versions, contradictions, Missing Verses, Verses Added...etc.


Posted: at 2-01-2011 11:28 PM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- donuche at 3-01-2011 08:24 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: abduuul on 23-12-2010 11:21 AM
Quote from: snowboyrum on 21-12-2010 02:09 PM
Believe in ur own religion and preach it everywhere and if u are able to convince some good luck and if not, then let everyone follows his/her own path stop criticizing others believe/religion. 

If i get you write, i think is not a matter of criticizing some one religion. i think the poster ask a reasonable question any way.






   




where is the stupid correct questions if i may ask?. where and how did anybody altered the bible or does translating the bible to other languages or simple English means alterations. if you want to argue try to argue constructively and do not base ur argument on falsehood or ignorant . since you do not believe in the bible at all why are u disturbing your stupid heads about it?.
Posted: at 3-01-2011 08:24 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- donuche at 3-01-2011 08:27 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: chik001 on  2-01-2011 11:28 PM
you must like the word "blackmail"...
No one is blackmailing anyone here...as I have said earlier somewhere on this site...gone are the days the validity of the Koranic writings hidden in Arabic text...
Now we don't need to learn Arabic or meet people " like you" to know the true content of Islamic texts...or fear to ask critical questions so as not to be killed.
You talk of real translation...
Which is the real translation....Abu Bakr... 'Uthman or The  Hafs version...probably the Imam Warsh version...or the Hausa and English version siting under my pile of "oriental" books...?

I have piles and piles of your "oriental books" and the Internet to tell me all I need to know about Islam and The Koran...Sources, Variant Versions, contradictions, Missing Verses, Verses Added...etc.






don't mind them they are trying to disgrace themselves by the time i will decided to talk to them
Posted: at 3-01-2011 08:27 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- donuche at 3-01-2011 08:33 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: sabiuuu on 16-12-2010 02:06 PM
Why the Christan change there on Book?



you don't even know how to write or speak good English and you want to engage people in an argument that requires a lot of research. you better hide your ignorant before we help you expose it to the world.
Posted: at 3-01-2011 08:33 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- donuche at 3-01-2011 08:37 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: cadanre on 24-12-2010 12:58 PM
@gangstar-kid

Can you please provide me with original, authentic copy of the Bible. With me there are many versions which I could not believe to be complete.



and where is the copy you called original if i may ask?.
Posted: at 3-01-2011 08:37 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- donuche at 3-01-2011 08:48 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: chik001 on  1-01-2011 09:09 PM
Quote from: mubaji on 31-12-2010 09:06 PM
@ poster
there are lots of reason for that:
firstly, because it's not under God's reservation for Humanity.
secondly, because it's outdated, it's an antique from their ancestors.
thirdly, some of them claim they want it to be in contemporary language.
just to mention few.


On the contrary…The sources of the Koran used by Muhammad include:

1.   Biblical narrative with alteration
2.   Jewish Haggada (A jewish scriptural text or commandment )
3.   Christian material from Aramaic.
4.   Legends common to world literature introduced via the Jews at Mecca.

All of these were altered and rearranged for the purpose of providing his listeners with an Arabian revelation with enhanced credibility because it could be seen as part of a universal divine revelation.
The Koran (Mohammed) storytelling was boring and he was mocked by an-Nadr ibn al-Harith who insisted that his own tales of Persian kings were far more interesting. (After the battle of Badr the prophet had his revenge and slew an-Nadr.)

The story of Joseph is the most complete narrative in the Koran, but it lacked detail. Why was Joseph put in prison after Potipher's wife confessed?...the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (27:16-45) is taken directly from the Haggada.

Jonah (37:139-148) is a condensation of the Biblical account...but the name given is based on the Greek rather than Hebrew form.

Saul and Goliath ('Talut' and 'Jalut') is a confusion of the story of Gideon (Jdg. 7:47) with that of David and Goliath.

The story of Moses (s. 28:2-46) is a summary of most of Exodus. 1-4...though Muhammad or rather The Koran does not associate Moses with the Israelites. Haman is believed to be Pharaoh's vizier (s. 29 and 40). As in the Talmud (Sotah 126) the baby Moses refuses to suckle at an Egyptian Bosom .
The marriage of Moses in Midian lacked pattern  after Jacob and Rachael; and the story of The Tower (virtually identical to the tower of Babel) is built by Pharaoh to reach Allah.
These narratives illustrates the freedom which Muhammad felt as a prophet to alter the Biblical tradition.  The Koran lacks spiritual endowment and without the commentary the Koran is completely garbled and meaningless.




bro you are hitting the hammer on the nail and when you are tired just give me  a sign so that i will continue from where you stopped since they want to stir hornet nest, just that i hope some innocent people in the north don't get killed for it because if they don't stop this their garbage mouthed argument i am going to post even videos



Posted: at 3-01-2011 08:48 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- donuche at 3-01-2011 08:55 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: Romanos on 28-12-2010 06:17 AM
Brothers, the Bible is a collection of writings that the early (ancient) Christian church decided to make their standard of truth. They (the ancient Church) inherited the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (translated in Egypt by Greek speaking Jews in the BC period) and the holy apostles sometimes quoted from these Greek scriptures and sometimes from the Hebrew originals when they wrote their letters to the first Christian communities (Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, Colossae, Ephesus, etc).

This early church was mostly Greek speaking Jews and non-Jews, and a minority of Aramaic speaking Jews and non-Jews. Because the Greek language was in those early times like the English language is today, the ancient church decided that the Bible which they put together would only include writings in the Greek language.

That ancient collection of original Greek language scriptures is still used by the Orthodox Church, which is the modern day continuation of the ancient church. All the different versions you are asking about are translations from that ancient Greek Bible. That's why there can be many versions, because many people in all the countries have translated these writings into their mother tongues. If their intention was to translate faithfully, then the translations can be trusted.

But we always must go back to the Greek Bible to check on any disputed point, and ask those who speak the Greek language (not modern Greek, but Bible Greek, which is still spoken by many Greeks and other nationalities) what the words mean. You will discover, if you do this, that most disputes melt away, except when those who question are not interested in really understanding the truth, but only in building themselves up and creating factions based on their private interpretations.

This is why there are so many sects. But the churches that have the Greek Bible and accept it, even though they are many nations, all believe the same way, practice the one faith as handed over from ancient times, and do not fight with each other over doctrines and teachings. This group is called the Orthodox Church, and in Africa it exists from ancient times in Egypt and Ethiopia, and in modern times it has become native in countries like Ghana, Cameroun, Uganda, Kenya, Madagascar, and other places.

If you want to hear the Greek Bible being read in the original language, visit my blog, Η Καινή Διαθήκη (i kaini dhiathiki), http://i-kaini-dhiathiki.blogspot.com/

If you want to find out about the Orthodox Church look for it on the internet, or write me a message and I will answer you. I speak English, je parle français, yo hablo español, and of course, Greek.

I am a Greek Orthodox Christian, and I witness for Jesus. We do not argue, but patiently try to explain the Bible and the faith of Jesus Christ, and we welcome all people to become disciples and have faith in God's Son, who is the savior of the whole human race, but especially of believers.

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Why? Because He loves us, and more than we love ourselves. He invites us to live in His Word, which is the Bible, and to make it our home, to speak its words, to think its thoughts, to let it take us apart and put us back together again. Sin has broken us. Jesus has come into the world to fix us. He was dead but He alive again and is with us at this moment. He is the most active person in the history of the world. Trust in Him.






i feel you. well explained if only they will read and understand  because the first thing they teach people in islam is how to counter the bible and turn it upside down because they are always afraid of the christian converting muslims



Posted: at 3-01-2011 08:55 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- donuche at 3-01-2011 09:09 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
@abduuul,,,Do you know that there is bible in Arabic language?
Do you know that in Arabs there are Christians, what can you say to them?
is English your own language? why do you study it?
MyQtion to you is why did christian translate their bible in Arabic if you know the Language is not important?



it is because we don't have any Occultic   or hiding things that we want to hide from the arabs or anybody unlike you that wants to hide the secret of islam from the none arabs because the arabs has been hypnotized already with the mysticism in the quaran coupled with the constant threat to the life of the few arab christian as they constantly live in fear and therefore can not be able to expose all the content of the quaran tthe exposes the occultic aspect of islam
Posted: at 3-01-2011 09:09 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- mubaji at 3-01-2011 10:32 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: donuche on  3-01-2011 08:27 AM
Quote from: chik001 on  2-01-2011 11:28 PM
you must like the word "blackmail"...
No one is blackmailing anyone here...as I have said earlier somewhere on this site...gone are the days the validity of the Koranic writings hidden in Arabic text...
Now we don't need to learn Arabic or meet people " like you" to know the true content of Islamic texts...or fear to ask critical questions so as not to be killed.
You talk of real translation...
Which is the real translation....Abu Bakr... 'Uthman or The  Hafs version...probably the Imam Warsh version...or the Hausa and English version siting under my pile of "oriental" books...?

I have piles and piles of your "oriental books" and the Internet to tell me all I need to know about Islam and The Koran...Sources, Variant Versions, contradictions, Missing Verses, Verses Added...etc.






don't mind them they are trying to disgrace themselves by the time i will decided to talk to them
God of mercy!
see your blunder: (i will decided to talk to them)
you mocked at the poster and you finally made yourself a laughing stock.
i'll advise you not to go after grammar or looking for people's mistakes online; because many write without care.
and if you care to know, you can't disgrace anyone here even if we meet in the real world.
Posted: at 3-01-2011 10:32 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- mubaji at 3-01-2011 10:36 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: donuche on  3-01-2011 08:33 AM
Quote from: sabiuuu on 16-12-2010 02:06 PM
Why the Christan change there on Book?



you don't even know how to write or speak good English and you want to engage people in an argument that requires a lot of research. you better hide your ignorant before we help you expose it to the world.

grammarian, point of correction in case of next time. use ignorance not ignorant in this type of sentence:- "you better hide your ignorant before..."
Posted: at 3-01-2011 10:36 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- mubaji at 3-01-2011 10:48 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: donuche on  3-01-2011 08:37 AM
Quote from: cadanre on 24-12-2010 12:58 PM
@gangstar-kid

Can you please provide me with original, authentic copy of the Bible. With me there are many versions which I could not believe to be complete.

and where is the copy you called original if i may ask?.
make that question an enquiry for your pastor when next you go to church. tell him to provide it so as to help out of this your state-of-confusion.
Posted: at 3-01-2011 10:48 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- mubaji at 3-01-2011 11:06 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: donuche on  3-01-2011 08:55 AM
Quote from: Romanos on 28-12-2010 06:17 AM
Brothers, the Bible is a collection of writings that the early (ancient) Christian church decided to make their standard of truth. They (the ancient Church) inherited the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (translated in Egypt by Greek speaking Jews in the BC period) and the holy apostles sometimes quoted from these Greek scriptures and sometimes from the Hebrew originals when they wrote their letters to the first Christian communities (Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, Colossae, Ephesus, etc).

This early church was mostly Greek speaking Jews and non-Jews, and a minority of Aramaic speaking Jews and non-Jews. Because the Greek language was in those early times like the English language is today, the ancient church decided that the Bible which they put together would only include writings in the Greek language.

That ancient collection of original Greek language scriptures is still used by the Orthodox Church, which is the modern day continuation of the ancient church. All the different versions you are asking about are translations from that ancient Greek Bible. That's why there can be many versions, because many people in all the countries have translated these writings into their mother tongues. If their intention was to translate faithfully, then the translations can be trusted.

But we always must go back to the Greek Bible to check on any disputed point, and ask those who speak the Greek language (not modern Greek, but Bible Greek, which is still spoken by many Greeks and other nationalities) what the words mean. You will discover, if you do this, that most disputes melt away, except when those who question are not interested in really understanding the truth, but only in building themselves up and creating factions based on their private interpretations.

This is why there are so many sects. But the churches that have the Greek Bible and accept it, even though they are many nations, all believe the same way, practice the one faith as handed over from ancient times, and do not fight with each other over doctrines and teachings. This group is called the Orthodox Church, and in Africa it exists from ancient times in Egypt and Ethiopia, and in modern times it has become native in countries like Ghana, Cameroun, Uganda, Kenya, Madagascar, and other places.

If you want to hear the Greek Bible being read in the original language, visit my blog, Η Καινή Διαθήκη (i kaini dhiathiki), http://i-kaini-dhiathiki.blogspot.com/

If you want to find out about the Orthodox Church look for it on the internet, or write me a message and I will answer you. I speak English, je parle français, yo hablo español, and of course, Greek.

I am a Greek Orthodox Christian, and I witness for Jesus. We do not argue, but patiently try to explain the Bible and the faith of Jesus Christ, and we welcome all people to become disciples and have faith in God's Son, who is the savior of the whole human race, but especially of believers.

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Why? Because He loves us, and more than we love ourselves. He invites us to live in His Word, which is the Bible, and to make it our home, to speak its words, to think its thoughts, to let it take us apart and put us back together again. Sin has broken us. Jesus has come into the world to fix us. He was dead but He alive again and is with us at this moment. He is the most active person in the history of the world. Trust in Him.






i feel you. well explained if only they will read and understand  because the first thing they teach people in islam is how to counter the bible and turn it upside down because they are always afraid of the christian converting muslims





fallacies
Posted: at 3-01-2011 11:06 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- mubaji at 3-01-2011 11:15 AM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: donuche on  3-01-2011 08:48 AM
Quote from: chik001 on  1-01-2011 09:09 PM
Quote from: mubaji on 31-12-2010 09:06 PM
@ poster
there are lots of reason for that:
firstly, because it's not under God's reservation for Humanity.
secondly, because it's outdated, it's an antique from their ancestors.
thirdly, some of them claim they want it to be in contemporary language.
just to mention few.


On the contrary…The sources of the Koran used by Muhammad include:

1.   Biblical narrative with alteration
2.   Jewish Haggada (A jewish scriptural text or commandment )
3.   Christian material from Aramaic.
4.   Legends common to world literature introduced via the Jews at Mecca.

All of these were altered and rearranged for the purpose of providing his listeners with an Arabian revelation with enhanced credibility because it could be seen as part of a universal divine revelation.
The Koran (Mohammed) storytelling was boring and he was mocked by an-Nadr ibn al-Harith who insisted that his own tales of Persian kings were far more interesting. (After the battle of Badr the prophet had his revenge and slew an-Nadr.)

The story of Joseph is the most complete narrative in the Koran, but it lacked detail. Why was Joseph put in prison after Potipher's wife confessed?...the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (27:16-45) is taken directly from the Haggada.

Jonah (37:139-148) is a condensation of the Biblical account...but the name given is based on the Greek rather than Hebrew form.

Saul and Goliath ('Talut' and 'Jalut') is a confusion of the story of Gideon (Jdg. 7:47) with that of David and Goliath.

The story of Moses (s. 28:2-46) is a summary of most of Exodus. 1-4...though Muhammad or rather The Koran does not associate Moses with the Israelites. Haman is believed to be Pharaoh's vizier (s. 29 and 40). As in the Talmud (Sotah 126) the baby Moses refuses to suckle at an Egyptian Bosom .
The marriage of Moses in Midian lacked pattern  after Jacob and Rachael; and the story of The Tower (virtually identical to the tower of Babel) is built by Pharaoh to reach Allah.
These narratives illustrates the freedom which Muhammad felt as a prophet to alter the Biblical tradition.  The Koran lacks spiritual endowment and without the commentary the Koran is completely garbled and meaningless.




bro you are hitting the hammer on the nail and when you are tired just give me  a sign so that i will continue from where you stopped since they want to stir hornet nest, just that i hope some innocent people in the north don't get killed for it because if they don't stop this their garbage mouthed argument i am going to post even videos




post whatever you like, you are only decieved by the power in the hands of your fellows.
Posted: at 3-01-2011 11:15 AM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- cadanre at 3-01-2011 12:26 PM (14 years ago)
(f)
@chik0000000000000000000001

You once said in your comments that there are missing verses of the Qur'an. Can you please give me the missing verses? You have also believed that we research on site looking for fallacies in the Bible. That is not true. The fallacies in the Bible and how you people alter it is obvious and known to all. Also its contradicting nature is known to yourself and other Christians.

Posted: at 3-01-2011 12:26 PM (14 years ago) | Hero
Reply
- cadanre at 3-01-2011 12:35 PM (14 years ago)
(f)
@ Christians in the house

What you failed to realise is your Bible is subject to editings, additions and subtractions with time. It looks more like a science book or a course handout that need to be updated to meet the demands/needs of time (civilisation). There are some parts which seems old enough or are in the ways they did not ought to be and then are altered and maneovered.

Posted: at 3-01-2011 12:35 PM (14 years ago) | Hero
Reply
- chik001 at 3-01-2011 04:02 PM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: cadanre on  3-01-2011 12:35 PM
@ Christians in the house

What you failed to realise is your Bible is subject to editings, additions and subtractions with time. It looks more like a science book or a course handout that need to be updated to meet the demands/needs of time (civilisation). There are some parts which seems old enough or are in the ways they did not ought to be and then are altered and maneovered.
See where your problem lies...
You and your companions failed to realize that...there is no and will never be a literal translation of a language to another…

 Anytime a translation is done into another language, the translator (who is only human) has to interpret the meaning and render it in the new language. It is, by nature, an approximation of the meaning, since words and ideas cannot be expressed identically in different languages.

Read the below explanation as if you dont already know...

1. A single word in one language often has meanings that require several words in another language e.g, the Greek word angelos could mean either `divine messengers' or `Jesus' disciples'.  The English word `wall' could be translated into German as Wand (inside wall, partition) or as Mauer (exterior wall).  Word for word translation is out of the question.

2. Because grammatical particles (like articles, verb tenses, case markers, singular/dual/plural, etc) do not exist in every language leading to multiple ambiguities (from the perspective of a target language like English). For example, a Russian sentence literally translated as `Boy threw ball.' needs two articles in an English translation, either a or the for boy and for ball. Only the context of the sentence could tell us which to use for the English translation. Not using ANY articles at all produces nearly unintelligible English.  The Japanese sentence rendered literally as `Remove front wheel' could mean either `Remove a front wheel' or `Remove both front wheels'. Which is the correct translation depends on the context.
3. Because idioms that have obvious meaning in one language and culture may be completely confusing to speakers from another language and culture.

Posted: at 3-01-2011 04:02 PM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- mubaji at 3-01-2011 06:34 PM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: chik001 on  3-01-2011 04:02 PM
Quote from: cadanre on  3-01-2011 12:35 PM
@ Christians in the house

What you failed to realise is your Bible is subject to editings, additions and subtractions with time. It looks more like a science book or a course handout that need to be updated to meet the demands/needs of time (civilisation). There are some parts which seems old enough or are in the ways they did not ought to be and then are altered and maneovered.
See where your problem lies...
You and your companions failed to realize that...there is no and will never be a literal translation of a language to another…

 Anytime a translation is done into another language, the translator (who is only human) has to interpret the meaning and render it in the new language. It is, by nature, an approximation of the meaning, since words and ideas cannot be expressed identically in different languages.

Read the below explanation as if you dont already know...

1. A single word in one language often has meanings that require several words in another language e.g, the Greek word angelos could mean either `divine messengers' or `Jesus' disciples'.  The English word `wall' could be translated into German as Wand (inside wall, partition) or as Mauer (exterior wall).  Word for word translation is out of the question.

2. Because grammatical particles (like articles, verb tenses, case markers, singular/dual/plural, etc) do not exist in every language leading to multiple ambiguities (from the perspective of a target language like English). For example, a Russian sentence literally translated as `Boy threw ball.' needs two articles in an English translation, either a or the for boy and for ball. Only the context of the sentence could tell us which to use for the English translation. Not using ANY articles at all produces nearly unintelligible English.  The Japanese sentence rendered literally as `Remove front wheel' could mean either `Remove a front wheel' or `Remove both front wheels'. Which is the correct translation depends on the context.
3. Because idioms that have obvious meaning in one language and culture may be completely confusing to speakers from another language and culture.


you are wrong and right, the right part is what i'll like to comment on:
you said "there is no and will never be a literal translation of a language to another…"
let me ask you this: why not make one reliable translation which shall be a collective-work of your religious leaders?
by that, you would save yourself these interval alterations. this really shows you are not translating; you are only editing the bible to keep it upto date, versions of dictionary even lasts than versions of your Bible.
Posted: at 3-01-2011 06:34 PM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- chik001 at 3-01-2011 11:00 PM (14 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: mubaji on  3-01-2011 06:34 PM
Quote from: chik001 on  3-01-2011 04:02 PM
Quote from: cadanre on  3-01-2011 12:35 PM
@ Christians in the house

What you failed to realise is your Bible is subject to editings, additions and subtractions with time. It looks more like a science book or a course handout that need to be updated to meet the demands/needs of time (civilisation). There are some parts which seems old enough or are in the ways they did not ought to be and then are altered and maneovered.
See where your problem lies...
You and your companions failed to realize that...there is no and will never be a literal translation of a language to another…

 Anytime a translation is done into another language, the translator (who is only human) has to interpret the meaning and render it in the new language. It is, by nature, an approximation of the meaning, since words and ideas cannot be expressed identically in different languages.

Read the below explanation as if you dont already know...

1. A single word in one language often has meanings that require several words in another language e.g, the Greek word angelos could mean either `divine messengers' or `Jesus' disciples'.  The English word `wall' could be translated into German as Wand (inside wall, partition) or as Mauer (exterior wall).  Word for word translation is out of the question.

2. Because grammatical particles (like articles, verb tenses, case markers, singular/dual/plural, etc) do not exist in every language leading to multiple ambiguities (from the perspective of a target language like English). For example, a Russian sentence literally translated as `Boy threw ball.' needs two articles in an English translation, either a or the for boy and for ball. Only the context of the sentence could tell us which to use for the English translation. Not using ANY articles at all produces nearly unintelligible English.  The Japanese sentence rendered literally as `Remove front wheel' could mean either `Remove a front wheel' or `Remove both front wheels'. Which is the correct translation depends on the context.
3. Because idioms that have obvious meaning in one language and culture may be completely confusing to speakers from another language and culture.


you are wrong and right, the right part is what i'll like to comment on:
you said "there is no and will never be a literal translation of a language to another…"
let me ask you this: why not make one reliable translation which shall be a collective-work of your religious leaders?
by that, you would save yourself these interval alterations. this really shows you are not translating; you are only editing the bible to keep it upto date, versions of dictionary even lasts than versions of your Bible.

Tell us the different between translation and version in this context?
Posted: at 3-01-2011 11:00 PM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- cadanre at 4-01-2011 09:36 PM (14 years ago)
(f)
Quote from: mubaji on  3-01-2011 06:34 PM
Quote from: chik001 on  3-01-2011 04:02 PM
Quote from: cadanre on  3-01-2011 12:35 PM
@ Christians in the house

What you failed to realise is your Bible is subject to editings, additions and subtractions with time. It looks more like a science book or a course handout that need to be updated to meet the demands/needs of time (civilisation). There are some parts which seems old enough or are in the ways they did not ought to be and then are altered and maneovered.
See where your problem lies...
You and your companions failed to realize that...there is no and will never be a literal translation of a language to another…

 Anytime a translation is done into another language, the translator (who is only human) has to interpret the meaning and render it in the new language. It is, by nature, an approximation of the meaning, since words and ideas cannot be expressed identically in different languages.

Read the below explanation as if you dont already know...

1. A single word in one language often has meanings that require several words in another language e.g, the Greek word angelos could mean either `divine messengers' or `Jesus' disciples'.  The English word `wall' could be translated into German as Wand (inside wall, partition) or as Mauer (exterior wall).  Word for word translation is out of the question.

2. Because grammatical particles (like articles, verb tenses, case markers, singular/dual/plural, etc) do not exist in every language leading to multiple ambiguities (from the perspective of a target language like English). For example, a Russian sentence literally translated as `Boy threw ball.' needs two articles in an English translation, either a or the for boy and for ball. Only the context of the sentence could tell us which to use for the English translation. Not using ANY articles at all produces nearly unintelligible English.  The Japanese sentence rendered literally as `Remove front wheel' could mean either `Remove a front wheel' or `Remove both front wheels'. Which is the correct translation depends on the context.
3. Because idioms that have obvious meaning in one language and culture may be completely confusing to speakers from another language and culture.


you are wrong and right, the right part is what i'll like to comment on:
you said "there is no and will never be a literal translation of a language to another…"
let me ask you this: why not make one reliable translation which shall be a collective-work of your religious leaders?
by that, you would save yourself these interval alterations. this really shows you are not translating; you are only editing the bible to keep it upto date, versions of dictionary even lasts than versions of your Bible.


VERY RIGHT MUBAJI. IN OUR LIFETIME WE WILL LIVE TO SEE MANY NEW VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE I AM TELLING YOU. NEXT THERE MAY BE DERBI VERSION, CHIK0000000001 VERSION OR INEMX VERSION. WONDERS SHALL NEVER END

Posted: at 4-01-2011 09:36 PM (14 years ago) | Hero
Reply
1 [2] 3

Featured Discussions