How did you learn Japanese?

[Mystes]

Who's Digital Manga?

Furigana are not used for the most common kanji (they assume you know such things already). The only text I've ever seen where every single kanji was marked with furigana was the Bible.

Though aren't there some books for younger audience where all kanjis have furiganas?

[rpapo]

Though aren't there some books for younger audience where all kanjis have furiganas?

Very likely. I simply haven't seen them myself. I refer you to my latest post on the Golden Time topic in Auxiliary Brigades (viewtopic.php?f=44&t=3500&p=147614#p147614) for a list of everything I own in Japanese, none of which books are really for little kids.

[ainsoph9]

Who's Digital Manga?

Furigana are not used for the most common kanji (they assume you know such things already). The only text I've ever seen where every single kanji was marked with furigana was the Bible.

Though aren't there some books for younger audience where all kanjis have furiganas?

These guys. They are a relatively new and experimental model for bringing manga over from Japan. However, they really do not have anything too big yet. Although they seem to have a dump-load of yaoi, I would try to NOT translate it. Seriously, yaoi makes me want to hurl.

Concerning translations of the Bible into Japanese, I have seen only a bit. Yet, I have yet to find a version that satisfied me, especially given the cultural barriers. Regardless, furigana is definitely necessary to get anywhere with translating the Bible to make it accessible to everyone.

[rpapo]

Concerning translations of the Bible into Japanese, I have seen only a bit. Yet, I have yet to find a version that satisfied me, especially given the cultural barriers. Regardless, furigana is definitely necessary to get anywhere with translating the Bible to make it accessible to everyone.

Agreed. You must also remember that in English, for a couple of centuries, the Bible was often how people learned to read, and was frequently the only book a family might own.

Anyway, here's a sample: Isaiah 48:1, as quoted slightly differently in the Book of Mormon:

1 Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness.

Not quite King James Version, but you get the idea.

[hobogunner]

Looks like I might be buying a Japanese bible soon....

Now, any idea of the translation tree with Japanese bibles? Do they mark what specific version they translated from, or just keep it the "Holy Bible"?

Unless there are Hebrew to Japanese scholars out there.... (I know the whole Bible wasn't written in Hebrew, but just throwing out a primary language it is in.)

Any recommendations on Japanese bibles before I explore the vast internet and attempt to learn Japanese through the bible?

(I have a King James Version as my personal bible, so something close to it would be best.)

[rpapo]

Looks like I might be buying a Japanese bible soon....

Now, any idea of the translation tree with Japanese bibles? Do they mark what specific version they translated from, or just keep it the "Holy Bible"?

Unless there are Hebrew to Japanese scholars out there.... (I know the whole Bible wasn't written in Hebrew, but just throwing out a primary language it is in.)

Any recommendations on Japanese bibles before I explore the vast internet and attempt to learn Japanese through the bible?

(I have a King James Version as my personal bible, so something close to it would be best.)

Try starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_tran ... o_Japanese

[ainsoph9]

@rpapo:

Spoiler! :

The problems with the translation of the Bible are many, but the problems of translation into English tend to feed into and compound the problems of the translation of the Bible into other languages. In other words, international missionary standards of many different denominations generally hold translators to the standard of translating the Bible into the other language (i.e., Japanese) and then translating it back into English from that language for a "sanity" check. Although the problem with this should be obvious, apparently it is not to the leaders of the councils who do these translations, assuming the team approach. (Note: Bible translations are generally done in teams or individually, each having distinct advantages and disadvantages over the other. Also, while the people on these councils are generally quite Biblically literate and educated, many of them do not speak another language outside of English - hence the standard.)

To briefly explain, the English versions most people have are not translations; they are a rendering of the text, not a translation of the text. Now, filter this through the fact that they contain "an English transliteration of a Latin mistranslation of a Greek quotation of a Hebrew text," (Gruber, Dan. "Copernicus and the Jews" p. 39) especially when dealing with terms and concepts only in Jewish culture. Using that as a filter for Japanese or any other language creates an absolute mess.

For example, you gave Isaiah 48:1. Here is the original in Hebrew:

שִׁמְעוּ-זֹאת בֵּית-יַעֲקֹב, הַנִּקְרָאִים בְּשֵׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמִמֵּי יְהוּדָה, יָצָאוּ; הַנִּשְׁבָּעִים בְּשֵׁם יְיְ, וּבֵאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יַזְכִּירוּ--לֹא בֶאֱמֶת, וְלֹא בִצְדָקָה.

Transliterated:

"Shim'u zot beit Yaakov, hanikra'im b'sheim Yisrael, umimei Y'hudah, yatza'u; hanishba'im b'sheim HaShem, u'velokei Yisrael yaz'kiru -- lo be'emet, v'lo vitz'dakah."

Not to pick apart Mormonism or anything, but the English and the Japanese given are not what the text says. The phrase "umimei Y'hudah, yatza'u" has no mention of baptism whatsoever in it. More literally translated, it says, "and from the waters of Y'hudah (Judah) will come forth." Hence, we have a cultural problem with the text. I will not derive how this came to be here now, but both the English and the Japanese contain this problem, with the Japanese just carrying it over.

Lastly, do not get me started on the pros/cons of the KJV along with its history.

@hocchan:

Spoiler! :

Getting a good Japanese Bible can be tough, but I will just say that they are all good because each one highlights a different tradition and helps point out certain parts of the text. It really is just a matter of approach between being "literal" and "contextual." To find out the exact specifics on each version, you can do some research online, where you can find others who are looking for a good Japanese Bible.

As for the Hebrew to Japanese, I can say that you most likely will not find any good Hebrew to Japanese Bibles around because of what I said to rpapo. If you really want to learn your Bible, learning Hebrew and Greek is the best you can do. As for the Bible not being all written in Hebrew, that is debatable and becoming more contested among scholars of the "New Testament." (If you are interested, I can point you to some resources about this.)

No recommendations on any Japanese version. I am just happy that you are getting one and want to use it. I do believe that there is one translated from the KJV directly as well as the NKJV. I know that at least one or two use antiquated Japanese like the KJV. As for the names, I would have to look that up.

[Mystes]

*Holds a Chinese bible in possession*

[ainsoph9]

How heavily edited is your Chinese version of the Bible, kira?

[rpapo]

@rpapo: For example, you gave Isaiah 48:1. Here is the original in Hebrew:

שִׁמְעוּ-זֹאת בֵּית-יַעֲקֹב, הַנִּקְרָאִים בְּשֵׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמִמֵּי יְהוּדָה, יָצָאוּ; הַנִּשְׁבָּעִים בְּשֵׁם יְיְ, וּבֵאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יַזְכִּירוּ--לֹא בֶאֱמֶת, וְלֹא בִצְדָקָה.

Transliterated:

"Shim'u zot beit Yaakov, hanikra'im b'sheim Yisrael, umimei Y'hudah, yatza'u; hanishba'im b'sheim HaShem, u'velokei Yisrael yaz'kiru -- lo be'emet, v'lo vitz'dakah."

Not to pick apart Mormonism or anything, but the English and the Japanese given are not what the text says. The phrase "umimei Y'hudah, yatza'u" has no mention of baptism whatsoever in it. More literally translated, it says, "and from the waters of Y'hudah (Judah) will come forth." Hence, we have a cultural problem with the text. I will not derive how this came to be here now, but both the English and the Japanese contain this problem, with the Japanese just carrying it over.

I am aware of the differences in the versions. Not to get into a lecture about Mormonism (I am one), suffice it to say that the quotes from Isaiah that can be found in the Book of Mormon are generally not exactly the same as what is in the KJV, nor are they exactly what is found in the Hebrew currently available generally today. If anything, it more closely resembles that which is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is a good 600-1000 years older than the oldest manuscripts previously found. In fact, the text found in the BoM is believed to be another 600 years older.

But that is not something I want to get too deep into, especially not here.

And yes, I am well aware of the history and shortcomings of the KJV.

I don't read Hebrew, though I have relatives that do. Suffice Japanese for the moment . . .

Actually, speaking of translations of translations, I discovered when I was in Peru that what the Jehovah's Witnesses were using there was a translation of the King James Version. Your average person there tends to use either the Catholic bible, or the Reina-Valera version, which is the general Spanish protestant bible, and as far as I'm concerned, quite a bit easier to read than the KJV.

[Mystes]

How heavily edited is your Chinese version of the Bible, kira?

To be honest, I never cross-checked. I probably should one day, but for me, having an English version o it is good enough. Plus, I'm an atheist...

[ainsoph9]

If anything, it more closely resembles that which is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is a good 600-1000 years older than the oldest manuscripts previously found. In fact, the text found in the BoM is believed to be another 600 years older.

Not to pick a fight or anything here, but HUH?!

How heavily edited is your Chinese version of the Bible, kira?

To be honest, I never cross-checked. I probably should one day, but for me, having an English version o it is good enough. Plus, I'm an atheist...

What does being an atheist have anything to do with whether a copy of a Chinese Bible is censored or not?

BOT, has anyone here considered taking any of the Japanese kanji tests?

[Sh4d0wStrider]

BOT, has anyone here considered taking any of the Japanese kanji tests?

I have the first one but at the end of june ^^ or even mid july

[rpapo]

Not to pick a fight or anything here, but HUH?!

The generally accepted facts (outside of Mormonism): The oldest surviving complete manuscripts of the modern Jewish Torah (the five books of Moses) are from the 10th century A.D (in Hebrew, the Masoretic text), and from 300 B.C. (in Greek, the Septuagint). The Dead Sea Scrolls are from approximately 150 to 70 B.C., and differ materially from the Masoretic text. The King James Bible's Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic text.

I forget where I read this, but it appears that some textual scholars believe that the oldest of the Old Testament books was actually Isaiah, and that it was written in the seventh or eighth century B.C. These same people believe that the remainder of the Old Testament books were written later, partially as a reaction to a power struggle between the various priestly classes in the region, particularly between Jerusalem (Judah) and Shiloh (Samaria/Ephraim).

In any case, in the Mormon religion, the Book of Mormon is held to be translated from a text written by various people between 600 B.C. and 400 A.D., and that these people had access to a copy of the Hebrew scriptures that had last been updated shortly before 600 B.C., and the large quotes from Isaiah there (plus a handful of other quotes from prophets now unknown) are therefore somewhat more "correct" than those found in later versions of the Old Testament.

That said, the differences are not huge, and the various excerpts from Isaiah make up perhaps 5% of the text of the Book of Mormon. They do not contribute much doctrinally to the book. Some of the differences from the KJV Isaiah are interesting, though, when you also include the Dead Sea Scrolls into the comparison. There are various debates to be found on the subject online, both from the "apologetic" point of view, and from the "debunking" point of view.

[ainsoph9]

I have the first one but at the end of june ^^ or even mid july

You mean the official ones offered by the Japanese government?

The generally accepted facts (outside of Mormonism): The oldest surviving complete manuscripts of the modern Jewish Torah (the five books of Moses) are from the 10th century A.D (in Hebrew, the Masoretic text), and from 300 B.C. (in Greek, the Septuagint). The Dead Sea Scrolls are from approximately 150 to 70 B.C., and differ materially from the Masoretic text. The King James Bible's Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic text.

Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, while it has generally been assumed that they originated from a single community in the Qumran region, some scholars on the Dead Sea Scrolls are now starting to look at the Dead Sea Scrolls originating from multiple communities. There are indications as well that some of the scrolls are older (i.e., 3rd century B.C.E.). Given the nature of the texts, it is likely that it will taken another 30+ years for scholars to just start to understand all of the implications of the texts.

The differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text is actually only a few percent at most (depending on how one counts). This is one of the significant discoveries concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, since it shows that little has changed over the millennia.

I forget where I read this, but it appears that some textual scholars believe that the oldest of the Old Testament books was actually Isaiah, and that it was written in the seventh or eighth century B.C. These same people believe that the remainder of the Old Testament books were written later, partially as a reaction to a power struggle between the various priestly classes in the region, particularly between Jerusalem (Judah) and Shiloh (Samaria/Ephraim).

The view that you are quoting is actually popular among liberal Christian scholars, who tend to follow along denominational lines. This view is also in line with the Documentary Hypothesis, which states that the Torah was redacted from multiple sources. All of this points to a later made-up text manufactured to legitimize a class struggle later on with claims to various parts of the land and leadership, etc. For those that take the Torah literally and as having authority, this is an obvious problem, since it de-legitimizes the Jews as having any claims to the Land of Israel and as the Chosen People. It also makes all of the Torah and Scripture an allegory, which thus takes away any real purpose to the studying of Scripture as a text for religious purposes.

In any case, in the Mormon religion, the Book of Mormon is held to be translated from a text written by various people between 600 B.C. and 400 A.D., and that these people had access to a copy of the Hebrew scriptures that had last been updated shortly before 600 B.C., and the large quotes from Isaiah there (plus a handful of other quotes from prophets now unknown) are therefore somewhat more "correct" than those found in later versions of the Old Testament.

Not to offend, but I do not know where you heard that the original text that the BoM is based off of can date back to 600 B.C.E. If it is true, then that would take away almost all of the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the study of them (i.e., people are wasting their lives studying something that has no significance). It is interesting that you mention 600 B.C.E., which is shortly before the Siege of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. The claim from the Samaritans that they have an "uncorrupted" and more accurate text dates to around this time as well. However, their Torah scroll is all in Aramaic.

That said, the differences are not huge, and the various excerpts from Isaiah make up perhaps 5% of the text of the Book of Mormon. They do not contribute much doctrinally to the book. Some of the differences from the KJV Isaiah are interesting, though, when you also include the Dead Sea Scrolls into the comparison. There are various debates to be found on the subject online, both from the "apologetic" point of view, and from the "debunking" point of view.

Any differences that exist would most likely be from the English, not the Hebrew.