Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've been on what is becoming quite the mission to find the most accurate translation of Daniel 9:23-27 (or the (Tenach/OT) bible in general) of the most original scripts/text available. It seems like all the English (the only language I know) translations I have come across are biased towards a particular belief, denomination, or religion. I figure in order for a translation to be accurate, it would have to be translating text that originated from before Christ. This seems to be more complicated than I anticipated.

Does anyone know of any services, websites, or anything that I can use to accurately translate this text without bias? Maybe it would be okay if someone in the community could translate it themselves, as long as it can be verified by others who know Hebrew?

Here is the text:

כג בִּתְחִלַּת תַּחֲנוּנֶיךָ יָצָא דָבָר, וַאֲנִי בָּאתִי לְהַגִּיד--כִּי חֲמוּדוֹת, אָתָּה; וּבִין, בַּדָּבָר, וְהָבֵן, בַּמַּרְאֶה. כד שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים נֶחְתַּךְ עַל-עַמְּךָ וְעַל-עִיר קָדְשֶׁךָ, לְכַלֵּא הַפֶּשַׁע ולחתם (וּלְהָתֵם) חטאות (חַטָּאת) וּלְכַפֵּר עָו‍ֹן, וּלְהָבִיא, צֶדֶק עֹלָמִים; וְלַחְתֹּם חָזוֹן וְנָבִיא, וְלִמְשֹׁחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים. כה וְתֵדַע וְתַשְׂכֵּל מִן-מֹצָא דָבָר, לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם עַד-מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד--שָׁבֻעִים, שִׁבְעָה; וְשָׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם, תָּשׁוּב וְנִבְנְתָה רְחוֹב וְחָרוּץ, וּבְצוֹק, הָעִתִּים. כו וְאַחֲרֵי הַשָּׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם, יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ וְאֵין לוֹ; וְהָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יַשְׁחִית עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא, וְקִצּוֹ בַשֶּׁטֶף, וְעַד קֵץ מִלְחָמָה, נֶחֱרֶצֶת שֹׁמֵמוֹת. כז וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים, שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד; וַחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ יַשְׁבִּית זֶבַח וּמִנְחָה, וְעַל כְּנַף שִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם, וְעַד-כָּלָה וְנֶחֱרָצָה, תִּתַּךְ עַל-שֹׁמֵם. {פ}

Not only pertaining to these particular verses, but all of the Tenach/OT, does anyone know of such a resource as described above? I'd like it in English, but if it the only accurate source is in another language and such accurate translations are a myth, then that is okay, I'll take it.

To summarize: I'm looking for a good, accurate bible resource as described, and also a Hebrew to English translating service. I might not be asking the right questions here to achieve what I'm trying to do. If I'm not, and you see my intentions, could you help point me in the right direction?

share|improve this question
    
I found an accurate translation of the Torah without bias. It is called the Mechanical Version of the Torah. The writer dedicated 15 years to its development. It's output is from a computer. Here is the Link mechanical-translation.org/downloads.html –  Only he is good. 2 days ago
    
"Unbiased" is a fantasy. Perhaps you could explain what biases you think are particularly problematic for this passage. –  curiousdannii 17 hours ago

3 Answers 3

A translation without bias? That isn't possible. Every person alive has presuppositions that they bring to the text. I know I do. Knowing and admitting that I have a bias actually helps me translating the Old Testament because I can then watch out for it when I am working through a text.

The best that can be done is to minimize bias by having a nicely sized translation committee made up of diverse denominations and perspectives. They might have a committee for the Old Testament and then divide that into subcommittees on the Pentateuch, major prophets, minor prophets, writings, historical books for example. Typically, members of the subcommittee will translate a passage and then bring it before the committee for critiquing and feedback.

The NET translation is a good, modern translation. It had a large committee and then posted them on the net for other translators, theologians, and pastors to give input.

I am not aware of a complete copy of the Tenach that dates from before Christ. There are pieces older than that (Isaiah scroll or 1QIs is a great example) though.

If you are willing to learn Hebrew, you can buy a copy of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The text itself comes from a codex dating around AD 1500 (Codex Leningrad), but there are textual apparatus in the footnotes and sidenotes that you can use in textual criticism and restoring the original.

I hope this helps you.

share|improve this answer
    
Welcome to BH.SE! I agree that the NET Bible is pretty good--especially the notes. But I find the translation choices tend to remove ambiguous language which is present in the original. For the general reader, that's fine. But if you are struggling with the text, as we do here, it's not always helpful to have interpretation problems "solved" by the translation. –  Jon Ericson Jan 17 '12 at 18:33
1  
I agree. I rarely use NET for text myself. Its notes are a different story. –  Frank Luke Jan 17 '12 at 18:45
    
@JonEricson, it's really hard to translate something ambiguous while keeping the same scope of ambiguity. Occasionally you get words which form convenient parallels (telos vs end comes to mind), but that's the exception rather than the rule. –  Peter Taylor Jan 18 '12 at 19:58
    
@Peter Taylor: Very true. I've done some translation of poetry from Spanish and handling ambiguity is nearly an impossible challenge. But I find the NET text tends to make firm stands where the text seems open to interpretation. Since we have the notes, which often explain the translators' reasoning, it's a valid approach. This is why I prefer to use the ESV for most quotations here. –  Jon Ericson Jan 18 '12 at 20:30

Here is the passage taken from the New World Translation. The translation of the Hebrew scriptures was taken from the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts. It is often best to refer to many translations to get a proper rendering in order to get the sense of what you're reading. Some critics do not agree with some of the renderings of the Greek scriptures. However this is the only translation that has restored God's personal name back into the text.

“There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. 25 And you should know and have the insight [that] from the going forth of [the] word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes‧si′ah [the] Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks. She will return and be actually rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in the straits of the times. 26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Mes‧si′ah will be cut off, with nothing for himself. “And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming will bring to their ruin. And the end of it will be by the flood. And until [the] end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations. 27 “And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease.

share|improve this answer
    
Well, other than missing/adding a few words, I think the only bias here is the use of the word "Messiah" in verse 25 and 26. –  Shredder Jan 20 '12 at 22:02
    
I think the use of the word "also" in verse 25 might be bias, but I am not sure. I would actually really like to know if it is or isn't. –  Shredder Jan 20 '12 at 22:43
    
Welcome to BH.SE! Your answer to the other question you tackled was excellent! Keep up the good work. Do you have a link for the New World Translation? Any particular reason you suggested it? –  Jon Ericson Jan 23 '12 at 19:00
    
watchtower.org/e/bible As a JW, this is the primary bible used. Most important to me, it restored God's personal name. However, you will often find us quoting from NIT and KJV quite frequently for different renderings that provide additional insight into the scriptures. We often get compliments from Jews for our rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures. Although many outsiders point to doctrinal bias, I counter that you won't find any modern bible translation without some sort of bias. Most importantly, the basic scriptural principles transcend whichever translation is used. –  It Grunt Jan 23 '12 at 19:16

There IS a translation without the western bias or prejudice @ v-a.com!

The prejudice against the Jews was introduced through the Greek,Latin,and subsequent translations into English, German and other European languages.

The prejudice was not in the Ancient Aramaic original Scriptures. The early Christians emerged out of Judaism; they were Jews, so there was no prejudice against their own culture.How could there be?

Therefore, it's important to note that the word for Jews was (and is) "Judean." There were those Judeans who didn't believe in Eashoa(Jesus).They were predominantly in Jerusalem;those people who were closely associated with the Scribes and Pharisees and the High Priests who conspired against Eashoa.The majority of the Judeans in Jerusalem also followed Eashoa.

The Disciples continued to preach in the temple in Jerusalem after Eashoa rose from the dead and went to Heaven.The persecution against early Christianity was from Rome.For many centuries the Jews were followers of Eashoa.After the Greeks and Romans became Christian and later when the Bible was published in Europe during the Middle Ages,there was much persecution against the Jews in Europe; but this was pure racism.The crucifixion of Eashoa was used as an excuse.It was not the Jews who had crucified Eashoa anyway,so the Jews became the scapegoats for Western Christianity's political ambitions.

Today it is still hard for the West to accept the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures, because the Western Churches are so used to the biased translations. Eashoa's teachings cannot be appreciated, His deity cannot be comprehended through the Greek-Latin derivative Bibles.

And; God isn't called "God" or "Lord" or "Jehovah" in the original Aramaic scriptures,the original manuscript from the original Church of the East.There is no "J" in Hebrew,and it was added into the KJV in the middle ages.

Why? Because Eil,Ashur(GOD)wasn't created,there was no one there to see him created,therefore no one to name him.

He only has titles - Eil,or Ashur.

Men have allocated him names,that describe him i.e El shaddai,Adonai,"the strong one"etc,and in Aramaic he is generally called Allaha.The Muslims call him a similar name - Allah,or Ullah - as both Aramaic and Arabic have similar,root words,and are both Semitic in origin.

share|improve this answer
2  
You have a lot of interesting (though unsourced) information here, but I'm not sure how much of it applies to this question. Could you take another look? You can edit your answer at any time. –  Gone Quiet May 10 '13 at 13:15
    
the source is from v-a.com, and the translator's source is from the original,preserved manuscripts from the Original church of the East,easterncatholicchurch.org/worship.html#1 and the pictograph and cuneiform/the Babylonian tablets of the Nineveh Library uncovered in the late 1800's early 1900's... –  nonplasticcholyman May 11 '13 at 2:34
    
And the added comment,simply expels the claim,myth that God had a name attested by the original, uncorrupted,unedited,preserved original Aramaic scriptures in the language that Jesus,the disciples and his apostles spoke and wrote in.It's hard to swallow,or accept as the truth,I know and understand,because we in the west have been "programmed" to accept the modern versions as the only one,and ALL. –  nonplasticcholyman May 11 '13 at 2:44
    
My comment is simply in answer the question put across,that you,wanted 2 know if there were a source 2 the original true scriptures. –  nonplasticcholyman May 11 '13 at 2:53
    
It's not actually my question, by the way. You've posted three different answers here. This one seems to be mostly a discussion of bias, for which you don't provide any support. That is, you say there's bias and you may well be correct, but you're just an anonymous internet user, so we need to actually see some evidence or logic, and you do need to actually answer the question. Another of your answers also points to your source and translates the passage in the question, so it may be a better one to improve. I don't see what this one accomplishes as a separate answer (nor the third). –  Gone Quiet May 12 '13 at 2:36

protected by Community 16 hours ago

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.