If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Cinderella - Answer first Explaination Comes Later
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Can people tell me what the slipper was made from that Cinderella lost at the ball?
Most people would say Glass, but if you do a little research some believe it was orignally fur and got mis translatedinto the word for glass.
However there are over 3,000 versions of the story from all around the world, for instance in China the glass slipper is actually a slipper made from Gold.
Almost every world culture has a version of the story -she's known as "Yeh Shen" in China, "The Burnt Face Girl" to the Mik'maq tribe, "Tattercoats" in England, and "Marouckla" to the Slavs. While the story can't claim a sole author, it does have a few notable interpreters.
So what does this all have to do with this section of the site?
Well many people keep quoting stuff from Holy Books and saying that this religion is bad because it says this or that, etc.
Well my point is that if people can't even agree on the details of a simple fairy tale then why are people taking extracts from Holy Books and saying this proves one thing or another? It's all in the translation and interpretation.
I've noticed a number of people on this site grabing bits and pieces from scriptures and Holy Books and using them in their arguments for or against something ... but very few times (if any) do they point out that their translation or meaning might be wrong.
Anyway just something to think about ...
Most people would say Glass, but if you do a little research some believe it was orignally fur and got mis translatedinto the word for glass.
However there are over 3,000 versions of the story from all around the world, for instance in China the glass slipper is actually a slipper made from Gold.
Almost every world culture has a version of the story -she's known as "Yeh Shen" in China, "The Burnt Face Girl" to the Mik'maq tribe, "Tattercoats" in England, and "Marouckla" to the Slavs. While the story can't claim a sole author, it does have a few notable interpreters.
So what does this all have to do with this section of the site?
Well many people keep quoting stuff from Holy Books and saying that this religion is bad because it says this or that, etc.
Well my point is that if people can't even agree on the details of a simple fairy tale then why are people taking extracts from Holy Books and saying this proves one thing or another? It's all in the translation and interpretation.
I've noticed a number of people on this site grabing bits and pieces from scriptures and Holy Books and using them in their arguments for or against something ... but very few times (if any) do they point out that their translation or meaning might be wrong.
Anyway just something to think about ...
0
Comments
This is where "holy books" are perhaps different, while different people penned differnt chapters it is all said to have been done under divine inspiration, so ultimately there is one author - God
the Bible for example - has been translated for about the last 1500 years. in the UK a man called William Tyndale translated the bible around 1500AD. the basis of his translation is still used the world over today. other translation such as the NIV have been done by teams of scholars over a period of years. the original language versions of the Bible are easy to find, and so the authenticity of the translation is verifiable. I am sure this is the same for other holy books.
I follow the point you are trying to make, people often quote or rather misquote or quote out of context bits of holy books to suit what they are trying to say. all I can suggest is if someone quote something at you read the source material and see what it says.
Translations is always the same, the interpretation is where the word it translates to doesn't exist in the culture of the day. e.g. in the king James translation of the bible the Greek word for spirit is translated as ghost, so you get holy ghost, which is an incorrect translation, but 500 years ago people understood what it meant - mainly unseen power.
and finally...
whether the slipper was glass, fur or gold does it actually change the story? Does it make a difference?
I would say no. Its almost as irrelevant as the colour of her hair.
If it was a Wellington boot, the story wouldn't change (well it might not be so romantic, but...
Those who are adamant that the word of god was written exactly as god intended.
Those who believe that although god helped these "authors" they were also free to add their own interpretation.
And those who believe that the bible is simply a guidance for life, full of stories and parables rather than being the direct word of god. (I would be inclined to believe this lot)
Bing, bing, bing, bing, bing! That's me. We have a winner. (Or loser.) I heard that.:crazyeyes
when you say greek/roman are you refering to just the New Testament? because the old was written in hebrew/aramaic.
Tyndale is famous (at least in theological circles) for bring the Bible to the 'common people' because before 1500ad it was only really available in latin
No original texts of the Bible were written in Latin. What I presume the poster above refers to as the "Roman" version, would be the Vulgate which was and remains a corrupted and poorly translated version which was motivated more to bolster the political primacy of the Roman church than for maintaining textual integrity.