Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Are the UFO's really the RETURN of the NEPHILIM? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (3)	3/8/1999 7:21:00 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 126

What are you rambling about? You'd better increase your medications..... you're losing it..... GZ

To: chalu2 who wrote (3)	5/9/1999 6:59:00 AM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 126

Yes the Bible can be translated but any translation of anything loses some meaning. Translating a text as old as the Bible which often doesn't make much sense to modern Hebrew readers loses even more. One problem is that it makes the text look more certain to some Christians etc. than it is. There are some better (e.g. Everett Fox) and worse translations but really a translation needs some commentary and footnotes. Jewish tradition certainly didn't reject translation historically or we wouldn't have the Aramaic translations for example. But their readers were aware that it wasn't the original. Of course translating into Aramaic is easier than into Greek or English. From my perspective the Aramaic translators probably didn't have a lot of clues either about what the original authors intended as they were removed up to 1000 years + from then. David