*laugh* Ok, to me his last name is kind of a give away.
PSI, I would make a distinction between blasphemy (which is disrespectful and/or inappropriate uses of God's names, or assigning actions or characteristics to Him that are) and idolatry. *shrug*
Taal, it's not a council, but yes, there is such an opinion. That is, phosphors don't count as "writing," but turning those phosphors into a printed page does.
quote: Many titles and 'nicknames' were given, but only I believe only one Proper Name.
Really? There are at least two really common ones (each with multiple variants) and probably 5 somewhat common ones. Admittedly, that's in Hebrew. Surely they don't all get translated the same?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? There are at least two really common ones (each with multiple variants) and probably 5 somewhat common ones. Admittedly, that's in Hebrew. Surely they don't all get translated the same?
Not all of them, I believe. One of the many discrepencies between the original Hebrew translation and the current Christian version. Most of them are in there, though. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be pretty much anything past the King James Version. Some of the newest ones may have all of them, since I haven't pored through all of the versions. Which do you use most?
I'm sorry, here is an explanation of some of the names in Hebrew. Many of them were eventually "translated" to things like "The Lord" and "On Most High" and such, when quite a few of them were either proper names or parts of proper names in the languages they were taken from. That is where the discrepencies lie. Very similar to how some words and names, when translated to another language, immediately sound either common-usage or hold less specific meaning. Many American/English names, when translated to their etymological roots, are not intended now for what they translate back to. This is the case with many instances of translation from Hebrew and some other passages in the modern Bible. As a caveat, I am aware that there now exist versions that actually include more than one translation for much of the text. One such copy is what initially created my interest in the differences of translation.
[ July 16, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, when I'm dealing with something where individual word choice matters, I use the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Rivka and I have already established that the only substantial difference between that "Christian version" and the "Jewish version" she uses is that the footnotes are in Latin.
Perhaps you meant to say "English translation" rather than "Christian version"?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's where it gets shaky. You see, some non-English translations, especially new ones, are more directly translated from reference, where older ones were not. They were often translated from a Latin or other base reference translation. Latin was a favorite of the Catholic church, which doesn't necessarily mean all churches, but is the largest of all the Christian churches and a good meter to measure by. It's not just English versions that have been translated "down" like that, though, because it isn't just the strict words themselves that are the issue, but keeping them in the same form (proper or common) and context as the original Hebrew.
I didn't say that the Christian versions I've seen are wrong, I said that they are missing some of the proper names attributed to the god and translated "down" to things like "The God" and "The God of Israel" and stuff like that. This, I posit, it where the difference in naming stems from between the two. Something got lost in the translation, and got picked up in another form.
Oh, and cool version. I wish I could afford one of those, but all the versions I acquired were donations. I guess the people who had that book weren't ready to let it go quickly.
[ July 16, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, the text of the Biblia Hebraica isn't a translation. It's the Hebrew text, from the Lennigrad Codex.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no. When I mentioned non-English translations, I wasn't talking about yours. Sorry if I seemed to be.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
The point I’ve been hinting around, btw, is that there is no such thing as a “Christian version” that can be compared to a “Jewish version” and said to be different. There are differences in translations, both in versions translated by Jewish groups and in versions translated by Christian groups. But those are caused by different languages, not different religions. (Excluding, of course, some “paraphrases” that have been written with an ideological bent. I’m talking about the straight translations here.)
It's some weird urban legend that the Christian "Old Testament" is substantially different from the Hebrew Bible. I try to dispell it whenever I can.
posted
Well, the version you use is not quite the same as the generally-used books, but I see what you mean. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out once again that even though the Matthew version of the geneaology includes women it is the Luke version that is thought to be Mary's geneaology (due to the way it is worded at the beginning about Mary being Joseph's wife) and the Mathew one that is traditionally thought to be Joseph's.
posted
I love discussions about Jewish stuff and how it compares to Christian stuff. I got some "Jewish blood" (if you want to call it that) from my Dad, but I was raised Christian. I'd love to learn as much as I can about the "other half" of me. I feel frustrated that I wasn't encouraged to learn about the Jewish customs, etc. because I was a Christian. Christianity doesn't exclude Judaism, I don't think.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't YHWH the only revealed Proper Name given? You may be referring to El/Elohim - I was under the impression that was more an extension of a god-title, since other idolatrous gods are referred to (in groups, yes) as elohim, but only for the singular "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is the pluralistic Elohim used. Under the impression it was used sort of like "Head God/Ultra-God"
--
And speaking of 'Christian Version', most english translations, from the KJV forward, DO used the term LORD (in capital letters, to distinguish from Lord, a translation of 'adonai') to replace YHWH, more out of tradition than anything. (I believe even in some manuscripts the vowels for the Hebrew 'Lord', Adonai were placed above the YHWH in the text, so that it would be read as such instead of speaking the Name. That's where we get the inaccurate 'Jehovah'/YaHoWaH rendering) I believe the KJV only actually spells out JEHOVAH twice, although I may be mistaken on that point.
EL, ELOHIM and most deriviations thereof are generally translated as GOD.
A note that even the Jewish Publication Society's translation of the TANAKH uses this convention.
I'm only aware of two well-used translations that institute regularly a rendering of the Revealed Name - the decidedly Catholic 'New Jerusalem Bible' (which renders YHWH as 'Yahweh', thought to be the most correct rendering), and the Jehovah's Witness' 'New World Translation', which liberally renders 'Jehovah God' throughout (even placing it a few times in the New Testament).
posted
Most actually appear to be adjectival add-ons to the basic El/Elohim and YHWH, the additions of which to me still appear more as titles than proper names.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
