Camel or Rope

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Given the similarity of the two words in Koine Greek and the far more logical metaphor that the use of 'kamêlos' makes, is anybody actually arguing that this was not either a mistranslation or error in scribing?

Firstly the Greek text does not say Kamelos, it says very clearly Kamilon as it appears
in the text, that is Kappa, Alpha, Mu, Iota, Omicron and Nu and is derived from the
Hebrew for camel, Gamal. Secondly i dispute that when employing hyperbole logic has
any place whosoever and lastly, the basis for disputing the word as we find it in its
original form is based upon what? nothing but conjecture.

Originally posted by CalJust
OK, rc, here is my contribution to this topic:

The entire preoccupation with the accuracy or not of TRANSLATIONS is a total red herring.

Nobody cares two hoots about such accuracy - in fact, several translations such as the Living Bible and the Message make no bones about being Paraphrases rather than translations.

The key issue is the context of t ...[text shortened]... sion, etc. These seem to be universal basics. But, again, probably food for a separate thread...

It is clear my friend that you have not evaluated this thing properly. why? because
bias has crept in to translations as translators have sought to forge their theology
onto the ancient text where none had existed prior, and for the discerning Christian,
this is important, for we are interested in truth. If bias has crept in, and it has, then
we are at pains to try to discern where and why and unless one of course can read
and understand Kione, we must admit to ourselves that we cannot discern where
and why and the best we can hope for is comparing one translation with another.

To state that nobody cares is simply not true, to term it a red herring is nothing short
of bizarre.

There are many stages to a translation, first a lexical translation, which is not really a
translation at all, but a word for word rendering as found in an interlinear, then
there is 'formal equivalence', the King James Bible for example, which tries to stick
as closely to the original language as is possible and then there is 'dynamic
equivalence', a reworking of the text , for example Today's English version.

What you seem to be referring to in your text is dynamic equivalence, that is a
reworking of the text to express ideas through metaphors which appeal to a specific
cultural setting. Well ok, that is fine, but it has serious weaknesses, for meaning is
rooted in language, not merely carried by it and secondly it adds an extra layer
between the meaning of the literal language, in this instance Greek and the reader.

In other words, we take it upon trust what the translator has rendered is accurate.
This contrary to your claims is of the utmost importance, for as I have stated
previously translation is open to bias and bias has crept in. Why and where is what
is important, if you are interested in truth, rather than mere opinion this is
important, regardless of pretensions of cultural setting or anything else.

Happy? why would anyone be happy reading a text that has a particular religious
bias, and believe me, all translations have it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Firstly the Greek text does not say Kamelos, it says very clearly Kamilon as it appears
in the text, that is Kappa, Alpha, Mu, Iota, Omicron and Nu and is derived from the
Hebrew for camel, Gamal. Secondly i dispute that when employing hyperbole logic has
any place whosoever and lastly, the basis for disputing the word as we find it in its
original form is based upon what? nothing but conjecture.

Firstly, what parchment are you reading that from? Secondly, he's making a metaphor. Rope through the eye of a needle is still impossible and just makes more sense. Lastly, yes, it is based on conjecture, but in conjunction with reason.

Originally posted by rwingett
You can quibble about how hard 'hard' is, but I say the very nature of the kingdom precludes the admission of rich men. Mind you, though, my definition of all the terms involved is not of the standard variety.

One spin on that “then who can be saved” question that I recall goes like this: The prevailing presumption was that the rich were (obviously) favored by God—thus if they aren’t saved, then who is? Jesus answer is not declarative, but indicative (in the context of the strong statement of impossibility): those not-rich, perhaps standing right in front of him. Thus the “all things are possible”, when properly contextualized, does not imply an escape clause for the rich.

—There is no such strong proscription on (justly acquired) wealth in Judaism; Jesus declaration was, I think, clearly “new torah” (remembering that there are the written Torah and the oral Torah, both of which J might have been familiar with; the oral torah was subsequently reduced to writing in the Talmuds and the Midrashim, but as a now-written springboard for the continuing process of actual oral torah, which continues today).

This understanding reflects the fact that the gospel is retelling a verbal exchange from an extant early oral tradition (e.g., Q; although I don’t think that a strong Q-hypothesis is required, just a known body of stories/recollections). The gospels are noted for lacking a great deal of description of physical gestures, reserving them for emphasis (“Jesus wept”, that kind of thing)—but an oral retelling likely included such gestures as a wave of the hand, a wink, a smile, etc. Unfortunately, they are lost to the hard text, and the oral tradition seems to have been short-lived (although some oral tradition, running parallel to the increasing textualization, ran in some form until Luther invented sola scriptura as a protestant principle; the early oral tradition was fractured in the “great schism” of 1054, and different versions continued in the east and the west from there on).

Again, that’s just one exegetical possibility—a valid one, I think, but not the only one.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Firstly, what parchment are you reading that from? Secondly, he's making a metaphor. Rope through the eye of a needle is still impossible and just makes more sense. Lastly, yes, it is based on conjecture, but in conjunction with reason.

Westcott and Hort, as always! sorry let me state the individual letters again, for my first post was a mistake,

Kappa, Alpha, Mu, Eta, Lambda, Omicron and Nu, Kamelon, from Hebrew, Gamal.

http://biblos.com/matthew/19-24.htm

Yes i agree to an extent that a rope is plausible if you stretch it enough, but its simply
not hyperbolic enough, a Camel on the other hand, now we are talking.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Westcott and Hort, as always! sorry let me state the individual letters again, for my first post was a mistake,

Kappa, Alpha, Mu, Eta, Lambda, Omicron and Nu, Kamelon, from Hebrew, Gamal.

http://biblos.com/matthew/19-24.htm

Yes i agree to an extent that a rope is plausible if you stretch it enough, but its simply
not hyperbolic enough, a Camel on the other hand, now we are talking.

Well I grant you that it says Kamelon on that webpage, but what document was that taken from? How many copyings away from the original? We have no way of knowing if an error was introduced at some stage, perhaps by a scribe who thought in the same way that you do that the use of 'rope' was simply not 'hyperbolic' enough to get the meaning across. Personally I think a rope is quite fanciful enough - I challenge you to thread a needle with a rope - and brings to mind another metaphor of Jesus's; that recorded in Matthew 7:3.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well I grant you that it says Kamelon on that webpage, but what document was that taken from? How many copyings away from the original? We have no way of knowing if an error was introduced at some stage, perhaps by a scribe who thought in the same way that you do that the use of 'rope' was simply not 'hyperbolic' enough to get the meaning across. Per ...[text shortened]... with a rope - and brings to mind another metaphor of Jesus's; that recorded in Matthew 7:3.

yes these are excellent questions cat dude, but are at present unanswerable.
What can we say? Clearly the scribes were fallible, clearly mistakes must have
been made, for when one examines an ancient Greek manuscript it contains no
punctuation, not even any spaces between the words and certainly under such
conditions it cannot come as a surprise if the eye plays tricks on us.

Never the less, what transpired due to the conservatism of the catholic clergy was
that effort was made to gather copies and to compare them and thus a process of
refinement took place as spurious texts and defective copies were identified and
eliminated, a process that took place from about 4th century onwards. Even today
we have entire copies of certain books which pre-date this, Sahidic Coptic text for
examples, copies of earlier Greek autographs from as early as the 2nd century. So
we are in a much better shape now than we ever were when other translations
were being formed. These recent discoveries have rather helped to confirm the
accuracy of the text rather than detract from it.

Simple disputes over the meaning of nouns are not troublesome for they do not
change the essential meaning of the text, even if it had been a rope, what
difference would it have made? A much more insidious practice occurs when
translators, fully cognizant with Greek and the peculiarities of the language take
liberties and impose their theology at the expense of accurate translation. We get
bias.

Here is simple example, from the New International Version,

'The Son is the image of the invisible God, the first-born over all creation' -
Colossians 1:15

The Greek actually reads, the first born of all creation. Now this is a total addition ,
for there is no way that you can derive 'over', from the Greek genitive article 'of'.
Why have they done this? On the basis of doctrine rather than what the text
actually says. They wish to make it appear that Christ is distinct from creation,
rather than part of it.

have a look for yourself. http://biblos.com/colossians/1-15.htm

I give you a little challenge, what does Romans 16:7 actually say in the original
Greek, look at the name of Junias and see if you can spot any bias 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes these are excellent questions cat dude, but are at present unanswerable.
What can we say? Clearly the scribes were fallible, clearly mistakes must have
been made, for when one examines an ancient Greek manuscript it contains no
punctuation, not even any spaces between the words and certainly under such
conditions it cannot come as a sur ...[text shortened]... ay in the original
Greek, look at the name of Junias and see if you can spot any bias 😉

Yes that is interesting. Appears to be an intentional misinterpretation to turn Junia into Junianus - that what you're getting at? I don't think I'm really surprised though. I already had a perception that the early church was far more egalitarian in it's treatment of women than the somewhat misogynistic edifice which developed from it.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Yes that is interesting. Appears to be an intentional misinterpretation to turn Junia into Junianus - that what you're getting at? I don't think I'm really surprised though. I already had a perception that the early church was far more egalitarian in it's treatment of women than the somewhat misogynistic edifice which developed from it.

Well done, yes indeed, the text actually reads Junia, there is no such name as Junias,
simply because she was 'noted among the apostles', she has become a man,
demonstrating, nothing more than gender bias in translation. Yes I have to agree, I
think it was much more egalitarian.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Firstly, what parchment are you reading that from? Secondly, he's making a metaphor. Rope through the eye of a needle is still impossible and just makes more sense. Lastly, yes, it is based on conjecture, but in conjunction with reason.

So it makes no difference if it should be camel or rope. The idea is
still the same. So let it go.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes these are excellent questions cat dude, but are at present unanswerable.
What can we say? Clearly the scribes were fallible, clearly mistakes must have
been made, for when one examines an ancient Greek manuscript it contains no
punctuation, not even any spaces between the words and certainly under such
conditions it cannot come as a sur ...[text shortened]... ay in the original
Greek, look at the name of Junias and see if you can spot any bias 😉

The JW's are the ones that impose the most bias on their translation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The JW's are the ones that impose the most bias on their translation.

How would you know? Which translations and Greek texts have you examined so as to
make a comparison? As far as I can tell RJH you are simply content to troll the forum,
uttering edicts and denunciations of anyone who does not share your own theological
bias. I would be pleased if you could spare me the ordeal.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So it makes no difference if it should be camel or rope. The idea is
still the same. So let it go.

So are you saying that the errors in the Bible make no difference.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
. . . he's making a metaphor. Rope through the eye of a needle is still impossible and just makes more sense.. . . , yes, it is based on conjecture, but in conjunction with reason.

I had a Christian friend tell me that be believed it was a mistranslation. That God intended the word "rope" be mistranslated as "camel".

Originally posted by moon1969
I had a Christian friend tell me that be believed it was a mistranslation. That God intended the word "rope" be mistranslated as "camel".

What was your take on that?