On Nov 29, 5:38 pm, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > Pat personally I would be very interested in reading your translation of the > gospels..would you consider sending me a digital copy? > Allan >
I'd love to have a copy myself. They were on my friend's/colleague's PC and I have no idea what happened to that PC or what was on it after his suicide. We stopped work in 1992 and by 1996 he was dead. I came to the UK in 1994, so his property and artefacts were handled and distrbuted (and possible eliminated) without my guidance or presence. At this point in time, I think what work WAS done is truly lost. We were using Eberhard Nestle's Greek compilation as our basis, as he had used 4 underlying original manuscripts and he only included, in HIS text, text that was in 2 or more of the original manuscripts. That seemed to me ot be a fair starting point, as it eliminated one-off statements made in only one of the originals. Whilst I still own the Nestle document (which has the Greek with English Interlinear underneath the Greek on the right-sided pages, on the left-sided pages is the KJV in one column and the NEV in the other column) and use it as a reference, I haven't begun to re-work a translation from the Greek on my own, as I've been more interested in researching my physics model and working on compiling THAT book. For me, at the moment, my own physical model/book is taking precedence, as it solves more questions than any current model and ties in with various scriptures and, in my opinion, will rock the world a bit more than just another translation of the NT. > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Nov 29, 3:22 pm, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Pat what it comes down to is I take all translations with a grain of salt > > > -- that is why there are huge oceans full of it.. > > > > Translation are a very difficult proposition at best and Pat medically I > > do > > > not have the ability to learn and use any language.. I can use english > > > because it is my birth language, Have fun translating. > > > Allan > > > Years ago, I'd started a new translation of the New Testament with a > > friend/colleague, but, sadly, that individual is no longer living. > > We'd finished the Gospels and were just into Acts when personal > > situations arose and work stopped. 4 years later, collaboration > > became impossible. > > Having made the attempt, once, as a part of a collaborative effort, I > > think that would be the best way forward, as two heads are better than > > one and, in tricky cases, you can actually reason out something that > > neither individual would have come out with themselves. But i've > > found it hard to find people willing and able to DO that kind of > > collaborative work. And you need to be both willing AND able. > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Pat <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Nov 29, 12:02 pm, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > even after learning the languages what you understand is still a > > > > > translation. so as I read down your statement you are telling me > > never to > > > > > believe what you say because it is a translation? > > > > > Allan > > > > > Well, I kind of see your point. If I'm quoting from the Qur'an, and > > > > my quote is put forward in English, then, yes, you're forced to rely > > > > on MY translation, which could be, like any other, fraught with > > > > agenda. But, when I DO make such quotes, I do it with my best > > > > understanding of the original text and do my level best to be fair to > > > > the original. As I've had more experience with Hebrew and Greek, I > > > > tend to quote those texts more often and, of course, there are times > > > > when I put forward a quote from, say, the KJV. In the future, when I > > > > quote from someone ELSE'S translation, I will mark it as such, as what > > > > you say is perfectly fair and a good comment. If the quote is based > > > > on my own 'best translation', I should also mark it as such, to be as > > > > fair as possible. > > > > > For example, when Isa. 34:14 (KJV) states: "The wild beasts of the > > > > desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the > > > > satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, > > > > and find for herself a place of rest." > > > > > I take exception with the term 'the screech owl' and would translate > > > > it as 'Lilith', as THAT'S the word used in the original text. And, of > > > > course, when one knows the history behind the entity known as Lilith, > > > > the whole phrase has a deeper meaning, as the legend of Lilith ends > > > > with her finding refuge in the desert. Plus, by mentioning the name > > > > itself, it lends credence to the Oral Tradition (Oral Torah) that > > > > contains the sequence of traditions regarding Lilith as being > > > > perfectly accepted in the times of Isaiah. In other words, I wouldn't > > > > 'translate' the word at all because the original text had a proper > > > > name there. > > > > The word translated as 'Satyr' is another problem, as the original is > > > > "sa'ir", which can mean 'hairy/shaggy' or 'a he-goat'. There's > > > > nothing necessarily demonic about the word OTHER than the close > > > > connection with the word Lilith in the same phrase. This has led many > > > > translators to think Faun or Satyr in this case. Whilst it's > > > > possible, I think I'd leave it as 'he-goat'. > > > > Perhaps one of these days (DON'T hold your breath!!!), I'll do my own > > > > translation of the Old and New Testaments, but it's a huge job and I > > > > have my own job that needs to be done first--putting forth my own > > > > theories. > > > > > Nevertheless, I appreciate your point and will strive better to make > > > > it known when 'what I'm saying' is someone else's translation or one > > > > of my own 'best understandings'. It IS an important difference and, > > > > of course, I would ask that you accept my own as being 'best'. By no > > > > means does that automatically rule out a sub-conscious agenda; so, be > > > > wary of mine as you would care to be. But know that I will try to be > > > > fair and will have investigated all possibilities before deciding on > > > > any given translation. I really WILL do my best, as I wouldn't want > > > > to intentionally mislead anyone when it comes to scriptures that so > > > > many take so seriously...and, quite probably, should. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Pat < > > [email protected] > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 6:52 pm, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Translations are a time a dozen every one is trying to express > > their > > > > own > > > > > > > point of view. > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > Exactly, which is why, after reading 4 different translations of > > the > > > > > > Qur'an, I realised I needed to learn Arabic, to avoid the > > translator's > > > > > > mistakes and/or agendas. The very same reason I learned Hebrew nd > > > > > > Greek, to do justice to the Old and New Testaments. The > > translations > > > > > > are, in many cases, so skewed as to be, in some places, stating the > > > > > > exact opposite of what the original intended. NEVER count on > > > > > > translations...NEVER!! > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Pat < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 4:05 pm, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Of course I am reading a translation, It is people reading > > thing > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > words > > > > > > > > > are not really there. When you are looking into spirituality > > you > > > > are > > > > > > > > looking > > > > > > > > > for clarity not confusion. It seems to me people read into > > what > > > > is > > > > > > > > written > > > > > > > > > just what they want to hear. My self I prefer to read what is > > > > said > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > people want it to say. > > > > > > > > > So far I have seen little of Isaiah but maybe I am reading > > the > > > > > > wrong > > > > > > > > > section. > > > > > > > > > And, of course, you need the Hebrew. I have a very good > > Hebrew/ > > > > > > > > English breakdown and study of Isaiah at home. It breaks it > > down > > > > into > > > > > > > > two volumes of around 800 pages each. Lots of commentary, > > which > > > > gives > > > > > > > > multiple interpretations. Funnily enough, though, as it's a > > Jewish > > > > > > > > study guide, does it try to match any Christian or Islamic > > > > > > > > interpretations...except for where it refutes them. Which, in > > my > > > > > > > > book, is another way of mentioning them just refraining from > > > > accepting > > > > > > > > them as valid. But it certainly gives a very wide view of the > > > > book. > > > > > > > > Isaiah was one of the prophets directly mentioned in the > > Qur'an, so > > > > I > > > > > > > > reckon there must have been a reason for giving him credence > > and, > > > > as > > > > > > > > Isa 29:12 matches perfectly with the beginning of the > > revelation of > > > > > > > > the Qur'an, it's no small wonder. The two give credence to one > > > > > > > > another. And, of course, the tone of God speaking through > > Isaiah > > > > > > > > matches the tone of God speaking through Gabriel to the Prophet > > > > > > > > Muhammed (pbuh) perfectly. Same patterns of speech exactly. > > But > > > > the > > > > > > > > two could NOT have been written by the same human author; but, > > > > there's > > > > > > > > every reason to assume the God was the same. At least that's > > the > > > > > > > > 'party line'. ;-) > > > > > > > > > Have a good weekend!!! > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Pat < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 25, 6:03 pm, iam deheretic <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Pat I have not finished reading quran, I see to much > > that > > > > was > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > written > > > > > > > > > > > by God or Allah but the direct influence of man.. > > > > > > > > > > > But believe what you want to believe.. > > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > I assume, then, that you're reading a translation. The > > whole > > > > > > poetic > > > > > > > > > > aspect of it along with double/triple entendres get > > completely > > > > > > lost. > > > > > > > > > > But, of course, that doesn't detract from my statement that > > the > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > > beginning of the revelation OF the Qur'an matches that > > prophecy > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > Isaiah word-for-word. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Pat < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 16, 9:24 pm, pathfinder < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just like in the days of Noah, shall the days be when > > the > > > > Son > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > Man > > > > > > > > > > > > > is revealed. Noah's message was strange and > > > > inconceivable. > > > > > > Jesus > > > > > > > > > > spoke > > > > > > > > > > > > > of this in Luke 17:26> "And as it was in the days of > > > > No'e, so > > > > > > > > shall > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > be also in the days of the Son of man." The warning > > is > > > > also > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers: 8 souls saved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isaiah 29:10> "For the Lord hath poured out upon you > > the > > > > > > spirit > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
