Regarding "sacred texts" and translations...

[know1nozme]

Regardless of which religion you follow, if the tradition is a written one (as opposed to oral), then your religion has a number of sacred textx which contian much of the religious history and wisdom passed down to you. It is well known that religious fundamentalists claim these written works to be "TRUTH" unassailable. As such, these works stand against any other history or logical argument because they are the undeniable words of the divine.

My question, then, is what happens to our ability to understand what these words were originally meant to say after they have been translated by human beings? How can one be sure that one isn't reading a skewed interperetation or an outright falsity when reading a sacred text in anything other than the original language? We have know for quite some time that "history is written by the victors." Just because a translation has been popularly accepted into the cannon doesn't guarantee it's accuracy when compared to the original.

Which translations of sacred texts do you consider to be the closest in actual meaning to the originals? Why?

[cabdirazzaq]

Regardless of which religion you follow, if the tradition is a written one (as opposed to oral), then your religion has a number of sacred textx which contian much of the religious history and wisdom passed down to you. It is well known that religious fundamentalists claim these written works to be "TRUTH" unassailable. As such, these works stand against any other history or logical argument because they are the undeniable words of the divine.



My question, then, is what happens to our ability to understand what these words were originally meant to say after they have been translated by human beings? How can one be sure that one isn't reading a skewed interperetation or an outright falsity when reading a sacred text in anything other than the original language? We have know for quite some time that "history is written by the victors." Just because a translation has been popularly accepted into the cannon doesn't guarantee it's accuracy when compared to the original.



Which translations of sacred texts do you consider to be the closest in actual meaning to the originals? Why?
This is a good question but it does not cover all religions or atleast not mine.

Acually, there is no such thing as an english Quran. There is not a knowledgble muslim scholar in the whole world -wether he is arab or not- who would accept this book to be called the Quran. It is only a translation of the meaning of the quran, meaning what?

Meaning that these words are how the translator understod it (sharing your point here) and it is his explanation and not the word of Allah(may he be exalted). Today there are over 9 milion people in the world who have memorized the quran entirely from cover to cover, word for word and I have my self -all praise be to Allah- memorized two thirds of it (400pages) in the orignal language and I can't even speak arabic!( Around 18% of all muslims are arabs)



This is acually how the quran has been preserved through all these years, it was memorized by the companions of the prophets(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) and written down while he was still alive and then passed on to the other generations.
The famous orientalist Kennet Gragg said:

"This phenomenon of Qur´anic recital means that the text has treversed the centuries in an unbroken living sequence of devotion. It cannot, therfore, be handled as an antiquarian thing, nor has a historical document out of a distant past"

And as to the classic question -why the Quran is only in arabic- I would need to answer it with another question;
Have you ever heard the Quran?
http://english.islamway.com/flashpage.php?id=14&cat=3&file_name=Tafseer_Nazeat&width=550&hight=420

Perhaps now you understand why we can memorize it.
(interpretation of the meaning)

Thus have We sent this down - an arabic Qur'an - and explained therein in detail some of the warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause their remembrance (of Him). [Quran 20.113]

[BlackBillBlake]

Regardless of which religion you follow, if the tradition is a written one (as opposed to oral), then your religion has a number of sacred textx which contian much of the religious history and wisdom passed down to you. It is well known that religious fundamentalists claim these written works to be "TRUTH" unassailable. As such, these works stand against any other history or logical argument because they are the undeniable words of the divine.

My question, then, is what happens to our ability to understand what these words were originally meant to say after they have been translated by human beings? How can one be sure that one isn't reading a skewed interperetation or an outright falsity when reading a sacred text in anything other than the original language? We have know for quite some time that "history is written by the victors." Just because a translation has been popularly accepted into the cannon doesn't guarantee it's accuracy when compared to the original.

Which translations of sacred texts do you consider to be the closest in actual meaning to the originals? Why?
A very good point this. And I think you are probably right, many translations of religious texts are not that reliable, or have become skewed in a certain direction.
I'd say the one's more likely to be accurate and non-biased are translations by impartial scholars, rather than by active members of a particular tradition.

[Sign Related]

Well know, it depends of the intent from who spoke.

Whatever got written from what got spoken should be interpreted as an antonym that it is indeed. The one speaking with wit understands this, and might have hid things in plain view of the readers of the written text or written text translation. Only those with wit might understand to invert the written text or written text translation they have, of say metaphors and parables, into antonyms. You see, a person of actualy wit understands that translations are just as synonyms. So the particular translation may be far from the particular language spoken, but a true person of wit might take the far translation as the synonym and then invert those written sayings of metaphors and parables into antonym form. If that spoken is as a metaphor or parable, rather than something meant literal, then understand not to dare put a bound on it! In other words, dont confine it to only a particular language or the synonym in which you read it.

Take this post for an example:
http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78853

[know1nozme]

This is a good question but it does not cover all religions or atleast not mine.

Acually, there is no such thing as an english Quran. There is not a knowledgble muslim scholar in the whole world -wether he is arab or not- who would accept this book to be called the Quran. It is only a translation of the meaning of the quran(snip)

Today there are over 9 milion people in the world who have memorized the quran entirely from cover to cover, word for word and I have my self -all praise be to Allah- memorized two thirds of it (400pages) in the orignal language and I can't even speak arabic!( Around 18% of all muslims are arabs)

If you don't speak Arabic, how do you come to understand the words you have memorized? Has the Quran (Qur'an?) become a tool for you, to be spoken as a drone for meditation? Can you really know what the meaning of your Qur'an is if you don't even speak the language? How can you? I can memorize and recite poetry and even sing songs written in other languages, but I can't claim that I understand them. In each case, I've had to trust someone else's interperetation of those words in order to know what it was I was saying/singing.

It seems to me that one would have to become fluent in the original language in order to truely study the text. This would be true for the Bible, or the Vedas as well, would it not? Is it even possible for a person to claim to be fundamentalist of any religion, if they were unable to read their sacred texts in their original languages - this makes it even more difficult to imagine so many people calling themselves true Christian fundamentalists because the collection of texts bound together in what is popularly called the Bible, today were actually written in several different languages, originally, then translated. A true Christian fundamentalist (one who believes the word in the Bible are the exact and true words of God) would need to be fluent in all of those different ancient tongues, right? If not, how can you be sure your translation hasn't been corrupted?