How To Tell Right From Wrong

[Immanuel Can]

I should point out that unless you are reading the scriptures in the original texts, Aramaic, Greek, Latin? you are reading the paraphrased words of the translator. So in that sense I would suggest that everyone is reading a paraphrased version.

Technically correct, except for two factors that need to be added to that thought.

Firstly, whenever you have an original manuscript, the more good translations you access for that one, the more likely you are to approximate the meaning of the original. This is because different good translators settle on different nuances of the original. So that given a really good set of translations, your grasp of the original can be very rich. Additionally, when one has on hand the original itself, one is in the best possible position to do good exegesis of the text. And no book in the history of the world has been so often translated -- or so carefully translated -- as the Bible. Consequently, if we are in any position to understand any translation of any ancient document, we are in a position to understand the Bible.

Add to this the plethora of good study aids, from dictionaries to commentaries to word-by-word renderings of the original documents, which have never before existed in history in such abundance, and all as accessible as the next computer -- and we are in the best position of any people ever to understand the substance of what we're reading.

We're resourced to the gills. So I feel pretty good about that. And you will find that there are, among the experts, very few and very minor matters of dispute remaining as to what the text literally says.

But secondly, not only are we interested in finding out what God said, but God (we can say, "assuming He exists," to catch everyone here) also has a distinct interest in our understanding of His Word. And in that Word, He has directly promised us special help and instruction (John 15:26) on that very subject. So (assuming all this is true), we are even in a far better position than I suggested above; and again, a better position than we could ever possibly be with any other book.

In short, I'm not too worried. Diligence plus our resources, plus a teachable spirit, plus the help of God are surely quite sufficient for the task in hand.

P.S. -- Just for your interest, Latin is not an original language of the Bible: it's Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Latin is only another language of translation.

[uwot]

Science is not a bad word for me. I think science is a gift from God (if there is a God). Can you imagine a world without science?! OMG! I wouldn't want to! Science is the ultimate progression and exploration of our universe! If there is a God...he is a scientist! How else could he have made the heaven and the earth? By magic? Please! Of course he used science...as there is no such thing as magic.

Hallelujah sister! Actually, I can't tell the difference between the universe and a miracle, but I love your take on the Bible. About the only thing we can be sure about it, is that it isn't literally true.

[thedoc]

P.S. -- Just for your interest, Latin is not an original language of the Bible: it's Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Latin is only another language of translation.

Hence the question mark after Latin, I was posting from memory.

If I understand things correctly there is great difficulty that has been pointed out in the few Bible studies that I have been involved in. The original languages were written in a string of letters without punctuation or spaces between the words, so deciding where to stop and start a word or sentence was often up to the translator, and just as often debated by other translators. So in spite of the frequency of the translation, there remains some question about the original meaning.

[artisticsolution]

Science is not a bad word for me. I think science is a gift from God (if there is a God). Can you imagine a world without science?! OMG! I wouldn't want to! Science is the ultimate progression and exploration of our universe! If there is a God...he is a scientist! How else could he have made the heaven and the earth? By magic? Please! Of course he used science...as there is no such thing as magic.

Hallelujah sister! Actually, I can't tell the difference between the universe and a miracle, but I love your take on the Bible. About the only thing we can be sure about it, is that it isn't literally true.

Thanks Uwot! Understanding Christians or understanding Scientists. ..it's all Greek to me!

[Immanuel Can]

So in spite of the frequency of the translation, there remains some question about the original meaning.

Not much, actually. I think you'd be surprised.

From your characterization of the language, you're probably speaking of the Hebrew. And yes, there are some challenges there, though no serious question about the general import of any significant passage. And there is no nation of people more meticulous about the scholarship of their writings than Jewish people are. There remains some debate about what to do as a result of some passages, but minimal issues about what they say.

Now, as for the New Testament, conveniently for us, Greek syntax has marked constructions, so putting together the syntax is not nearly so problematic as you might suppose if you are working from a non-marked language like English. In Greek, it's like each part-of-speech has it's own little "flag" demarcating it as a subject, or object, or particular tense, or whatever, because the endings are all informative of that, and Greek, like every other language, has its own regularities, rhythms and patterns.

And as I say, if ANY ancient book has EVER been adequately translated, it surely has to be the Bible. Nothing has ever received anything close to the critical attention it has gotten over the thousands of years since the first manuscripts appeared. I doubt you and I are in much of a position to gainsay all that expertise. We may as well just profit from it, but referring to the original languages plus as many good translations as we can access.

In sum, such issues as remain are very small indeed. We pretty much know what it says. Now, applying what it says, that's a much more complex and challenging undertaking. But it's not really because we don't understand.

[uwot]

And as I say, if ANY ancient book has EVER been adequately translated, it surely has to be the Bible... We pretty much know what it says. Now, applying what it says, that's a much more complex and challenging undertaking. But it's not really because we don't understand.

So irony is not completely alien to you: can you think of any other text that has been so diversely interpreted?

[Immanuel Can]

So irony is not completely alien to you: can you think of any other text that has been so diversely interpreted?

Ha. Irony is fine with me. But it's just realism, really.

Human beings are great at knowing what they should do and not doing it...and even better at finding excuses why they should never have had to think about it in the first place.

[uwot]

So irony is not completely alien to you: can you think of any other text that has been so diversely interpreted?

Ha. Irony is fine with me. But it's just realism, really.

Really? So; any thoughts on why such a scrupulously engineered book fails to achieve unanimity, even amongst people who believe it to be some sort of truth?

Human beings are great at knowing what they should do and not doing it...and even better at finding excuses why they should never have had to think about it in the first place.

Presumably you blame their creator for that. Are you sure about your relationship to irony? Is there not some evident in the suggestion that one needn't think about the rules prescribed in a book of which you say:

Nothing has ever received anything close to the critical attention it has gotten over the thousands of years since the first manuscripts appeared.

Yeah, irony; here's another: how long after the events described, did the first manuscripts appear?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I could go into the archaeology of manuscripts (the answer is different for different manuscripts, by the way...the Bible is not one book but 66, by 40 different authors from different times and backgrounds, over a period of 1500 years or so, and in three different languages...really, more like an ancient library than a single book), but that whole discussion is only going to be of interest to a limited number of people. I could give you lots of references for some very fine technical discussion of that particular issue...but I'm sensing perhaps your own interest in such a discussion is not actually huge.

[uwot]

... I'm sensing perhaps your own interest in such a discussion is not actually huge.

No it isn't, but I'd still like an answer to this question:

...any thoughts on why such a scrupulously engineered book fails to achieve unanimity, even amongst people who believe it to be some sort of truth?

[thedoc]

... I'm sensing perhaps your own interest in such a discussion is not actually huge.

No it isn't, but I'd still like an answer to this question:

...any thoughts on why such a scrupulously engineered book fails to achieve unanimity, even amongst people who believe it to be some sort of truth?

IC alluded to the answer, there are 66 books by 40 different authors, each with a different agenda, written for a different audience, and with a different message. If we just look at the 4 Gospels we have the same situation, different authors, different audience, and different message. The Bible is not a novel with one plot going throughout from beginning to the end, but many different stories collected together, more like an anthology of stories about the Hebrew people.

[Immanuel Can]

IC alluded to the answer, there are 66 books by 40 different authors, each with a different agenda, written for a different audience, and with a different message. If we just look at the 4 Gospels we have the same situation, different authors, different audience, and different message. The Bible is not a novel with one plot going throughout from beginning to the end, but many different stories collected together, more like an anthology of stories about the Hebrew people.

That's concisely put. Thank you. (I'll hold back on the "different message" option, pending elaboration, since something in common must hold together anything we call an "anthology"; but other than that, I essentially agree). We are accustomed to encountering the Bible as one book, but its a collection including a variety of modes of writing, from the poetic to the legal, to the chronological, to the historical to the allegorical to the epistolary to the prophetic...and each mode has its contribution to the whole.

The first thing worth marvelling at is that one can find coherence among so many books and authors over such a long period of time. Imagine trying to do that with any other set of books over even a single century and you'll quickly see the problem. If there are areas of distinctiveness, the areas of coordination and thematic coherence are far more remarkable than the diversity of styles.

But to respond to your question: why is there not unanimity? Because people are not always so interested in what it says as in making it say what they would like, or in imagining what they would have preferred it to say if they had actually bothered to read it at all. You'll find that hermeneutics is inseparable from the attitude of the one approaching the text: we choose our hermeneutic with more or less honesty, depending on the purpose we have in mind.

It's that human mendacity thing again, really.

[artisticsolution]

But to respond to your question: why is there not unanimity? Because people are not always so interested in what it says as in making it say what they would like, or in imagining what they would have preferred it to say if they had actually bothered to read it at all. You'll find that hermeneutics is inseparable from the attitude of the one approaching the text: we choose our hermeneutic with more or less honesty, depending on the purpose we have in mind.

It's that human mendacity thing again, really.

Which is all the more reason to use the test in my op. It is, a good way to become self aware. If your a good Christian the answer will be clear for you...you will know when you err...and if not...you are not capable of understanding. Innocent, like a child.

But here's a question for you...if God loves his children so much to sacrifice his only son so they may be saved, why can't you?

Human mendacity? Maybe, but that assumes they know what they do.

[uwot]

The Bible is not a novel with one plot going throughout from beginning to the end, but many different stories collected together, more like an anthology of stories about the Hebrew people.

Fair enough, but I think many people, Immanuel Can included, believe that the bible is more than an anthology of stories.

But to respond to your question: why is there not unanimity? Because people are not always so interested in what it says as in making it say what they would like...

So how do you differ from 'people' in that respect?

[thedoc]

IC alluded to the answer, there are 66 books by 40 different authors, each with a different agenda, written for a different audience, and with a different message. If we just look at the 4 Gospels we have the same situation, different authors, different audience, and different message. The Bible is not a novel with one plot going throughout from beginning to the end, but many different stories collected together, more like an anthology of stories about the Hebrew people.

That's concisely put. Thank you. (I'll hold back on the "different message" option, pending elaboration, since something in common must hold together anything we call an "anthology"; but other than that, I essentially agree). We are accustomed to encountering the Bible as one book, but its a collection including a variety of modes of writing, from the poetic to the legal, to the chronological, to the historical to the allegorical to the epistolary to the prophetic...and each mode has its contribution to the whole.

The first thing worth marvelling at is that one can find coherence among so many books and authors over such a long period of time. Imagine trying to do that with any other set of books over even a single century and you'll quickly see the problem. If there are areas of distinctiveness, the areas of coordination and thematic coherence are far more remarkable than the diversity of styles.

But to respond to your question: why is there not unanimity? Because people are not always so interested in what it says as in making it say what they would like, or in imagining what they would have preferred it to say if they had actually bothered to read it at all. You'll find that hermeneutics is inseparable from the attitude of the one approaching the text: we choose our hermeneutic with more or less honesty, depending on the purpose we have in mind.

It's that human mendacity thing again, really.

I will start by saying there is a common theme throughout the Bible and that would be the relationship between God and the Israelites and later Christians. The differences are the different situations that are described, from protecting them, saving them from captivity, and punishing them for falling away from God, rewarding them for being faithful. Of course this is only a short list, and there can be added many variations. I hope this helps to clarify the "different messages" comment.