Translation Errors in Scripture

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I don't know if I would ever go to church...

...but I know which churches I wouldn't go to.

[Chris_]

I don't know if I would ever go to church...

...but I know which churches I wouldn't go to.

OK....you've piqued my curiosity........

doc

[Thor]

OK, I need to speak up for historical accuracy and clarity's sake. The "eye of the needle" was a place in the middle east where camels had to get down on their knees in order to enter. (I forget which city it was in) Imagine, a camel, walking on it's knees to get through the gate. I could be proven wrong, but that's what I was taught.

The bible is RIFE with translation errors. Imagine, Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English........ I don't think I need to say much more.

[Thor]

For reference: http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

[Doc]

OK, I need to speak up for historical accuracy and clarity's sake. The "eye of the needle" was a place in the middle east where camels had to get down on their knees in order to enter. (I forget which city it was in) Imagine, a camel, walking on it's knees to get through the gate. I could be proven wrong, but that's what I was taught.

The bible is RIFE with translation errors. Imagine, Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English........ I don't think I need to say much more.

Mrs Smith used that example as well.....I have never heard it, and in my visits to Jerusalem, never saw such a gate (however, there are many, and I can't attest to seeing them all, further much of the walls are either gone, or have buildings abutting them that it is impossible to know for sure)......however, buried in your link (next post below) is this:

A brief survey of sermons or search on the Internet reveals how many perpetuate the myth of the small gate in Jerusalem. Victorian travellers to the Holy Land even claim to have been shown it. The inaccuracy may appear harmless but it is neither good scholarship nor good exposition. The exaggerated and contrasted size is deliberate and is not an overt judgement on riches or poverty. Jesus reflects on how hard it often is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. The riches are a distraction and hard to share if one is too attached to them. The disciples' incredulity is that if even the rich cannot be saved, who can? But the verdict is that even the rich, not only the rich, will find it impossible to save themselves – but with God all things are possible.

Which seems to imply that the verse....in its entirety, is allegorical, which is fine......it's just not taught that way in modern Christian Churches,,,,,,

So it then becomes:  A "misinterpretation", rather than a "mistranslation"......however, if the gate doesn't exist, then the allegorical "rope" is all we are left with....

doc

[debk]

It is indeed an interesting discussion.

But at the end of the day, I doubt that God really cares which day of the week one goes to church to worship.

I agree, it has been an interesting discussion.

I remember way back in college....attending a Mass at the Newman Center....and the priest, in his Homily said....."God doesn't care what day you come to Church, or even what you wear....He only cares that you show up".

It's something I've never forgotten.

Personally, I prefer going on Wednesday's at noon. I'm there because I want to be....not because I'm expected to be there by some other parishioner. And I usually have jeans on, as it's the middle of my work day.

Excuse the intrusion, but I see a "forest and trees" situation......perhaps it would be helpful to simply examine the paradox in the passage, setting aside the linguistic minutia for a moment......

The question becomes......under what circumstances would two "Sabbaths" occur back to back, as the verse implies?

Carry on....

doc

Perhaps the difference in the Sabbath day between Jews and Christians was something so simple as to separate the two Sabbaths and the two religions.

The Jews kept their Saturday Sabbath as it was long established, and the Christians took Sunday, based on the day the Resurrection occurred.

That's probably too simple an explanation....

[Thor]

Well, I'd be willing to argue which day is the Sabbath. The calender has been changed over the centuries and really, do we actually know that Jesus was crucified on a Friday?? I recall reading about where people were loathe to crucify someone on the Sabbath Eve. Remember, the Sabbath actually starts Friday evening for many.

[Chris_]

Well, I'd be willing to argue which day is the Sabbath. The calender has been changed over the centuries and really, do we actually know that Jesus was crucified on a Friday?? I recall reading about where people were loathe to crucify someone on the Sabbath Eve. Remember, the Sabbath actually starts Friday evening for many.

Excellent point.....we should probably look at the continuity of the calendar over the period.....

Just like we don't know for absolute certainty when Christ was actually born.....we celebrate it on December 25th, but the Greek Church uses another date, and I've read scientific theories that place his birth anywhere from February to June (based on astronomical data) .....and interestingly enough there is a growing group of Biblical scholars that believe that Christ was actually born three to six years before "1 AD".......we just don't know.

Returning to MSB's verse translation relating to "Easter"....again, the date that we celebrate Easter is calculated on the "lunar calendar", and therefore varies in actual date from year to year.......

I'm not Biblical scholar enough to understand why it is so calculated, however, I suspect that it related to the Jewish liturgical calendar, and scriptural references to its proximity to Passover.......

doc