wow…it’s been a whole month since the last time i added a new installment in this series…i may be a bit rusty, so please bear with me…
it may sound odd for me, a self-confessed agnostic, to address this subject, but then again, i’ve met christians whose knowledge of the bible is less than my own, so i figure that since belief is no indicator of biblical knowledge, neither is lack of belief a reliable indicator of biblical ignorance. IOW, there’s no reason why i can’t speak to this matter.
as to why: long-time readers know that i select subjects for this series that matter to me. and there’s no question that the bible is important—even to me. i was after all an english major in college, and it’s awfully hard to understand shakespeare without some understanding of the bible—and milton is impossible to understand without that knowledge. besides, the bible and its principles drive massive numbers of people in the world, either directly or indirectly. the bible, even apart from his religious significance, is massively important both literarily and culturally. it is fantastically important historically.
as usual, i will continue my habit of referring to the two major portions of the bible known to christians as the old and new testaments as the jewish bible and christian bible. i ask that commenters consider observing that practice herein.
biblical scholarship is an endlessly fascinating subject to me. i’ve already written in the past on two occasions of my take on theological matters (linked if anyone is curious) and to the best of my knowledge, these positions are familiar to actual biblical scholars (i make no claims as to being one, myself).
i’m always interested in how people read a book which was written in hebrew, a language that was largely extinct up until around 2 centuries ago (the jewish bible), and a trade language—koine greek, a sort of trade-related dialect of proper greek (the christian bible), esp christians.
a friend of mine who received orthodox rabbinic training once observed to me that he was invariably amused by christians he’s encountered, esp those that tried to evangelize to him. the reason he was amused was that there is a large body of commentaries (and commentaries upon commentaries, and so on) by whole millennia of jewish scholars and attempting to understand the jewish bible without the benefit of that lens was to him analogous to trying to build a house without blueprints (in short). i expressed my surprise to him about his observation—although i grew up in an area where there is a good-sized jewish population, this was the first i heard of such a thing, and because i have an interest in it, i was quite surprised i missed something so seemingly basic.
i learned during the course of our ensuing conversation that while certainly there are commentaries on the christian bible by christian theologians and scholars, there is absolutely no equivalent in the gentile world in terms of volume. indeed, a particular set of such commentaries, the midrash, was authored by a group of thinkers so revered they are collectively referred to as the sages of blessed memory.
(i’ll confess that i couldn’t help thinking that it must’ve been easy for the hebrew sages to write their commentaries because they didn’t have to write all of letters a gentile scholar would have.*)
that little digression aside: i’m particularly interested in the various biblical translations. the authorized version (better known as the king james version, or KJV) of 1611 is probably the single best-known translation of the bible and for centuries reigned as the undisputed translation following centuries of religious persecution against those who would seek to translate the bible from the vulgate, a latin translation of both the hebrew and koine greek versions. the KJV sounds beautiful when read aloud and there’s no question in my mind that the biblical scholars empaneled by king james to conduct the translation had a great appreciation for poetry. to the best of my knowledge, no other translation can come close to the sheer beauty of the sound of the KJV when read aloud. indeed, i challenge you to give this a shot: this is the biblical scriptural site i like to use. it lets you look up a given scripture and see it in various translations. compare a KJV rendition versus any other english translation available on the site: i am confident that the others simply won’t come close to sounding as good when read aloud**.
but for as beautiful as it sounds, there is a significant problem with the KJV: it was translated from a secondary source—the vulgate. while jerome, translator of the vulgate, did go back to the original hebrew rather than relying upon the septuagint as his predecessors had, relying upon even stellar secondary source is still relying upon secondary source. and that can lead to inaccuracies.
at the risk of seeming impious or disrespectful, let me try an analogy: if i translate a work of fiction from english into another language, like portuguese, then someone else comes along a few hundred years later and translates that work from that language into, say, mandarin, it’s simply not going to be a very accurate translation, no matter how beautiful it sounds, and that’s the problem with the KJV—it’s the same problem but writ large upon the canvas of faith, which is so much more important than a work of fiction—it gives rise to works of fiction. it’s like playing the game “telephone” across the centuries, and to do that with something as important as religion is fantastically foolish. there’s also the secondary problem that english usage has changed pretty darned dramatically since the 17th century, when the KJV translation was completed. the first is quite simply a mistake in scholarship; the second, an inevitable problem of linguistics and time.
you may be unfamiliar with william tyndale, to me a fascinating figure in the history of biblical translation. branded a heretic for daring to translate the christian bible into english, he fled england for amsterdam and produced the first known modern english translation of the bible in 1526—although his translation work was predated by no less a figure than martin luther, father of the protestant reformation, who translated the bible into german four years earlier. and even though tyndale’s version suffers from the same problem as the KJV (tyndale lacked access to the original texts and hence he also used the vulgate), it was still the first complete bible in modern english. the democratizing effects of his work are still being felt: the rise of christian fundamentalism, despite my misgivings about it, would have been impossible without tyndale’s belief that all people should be able to understand what the bible says for themselves; it was perhaps a forerunner of william wordsworth’s conviction that poetry ought to be written in the language of the common man (preface to lyrical ballads, 1780).
around 10 or so years ago, the library of congress put on an extraordinary exhibit about the history of the bible that i was fortunate enough to see while on vacation. it was a hugely informative—as you might imagine. always interested in matters of theology, this experience helped to crystallize my own enthusiasm in theology into more of an interest.
as i dug further, i came to understand the true breadth of just english language translations of the bible. at the time only familiar with the KJV and NIV (new international version, published by zondervan), i was plunged into a veritable sea of translations: three and four letter acronyms like RSV, TEB and NRSV became part of my functioning theological vocabulary.
that was when i first came to grasp another, deeper truth in understanding the bible: that knowing only one translation was simply inadequate. i developed a fascination with biblical translations and was shocked to learn that there were, relatively speaking, very few translations in other languages—according to my recollection, there are really only 2 major spanish language translations: the reina valera and the reina valera update of 1960. it seemed as though it was only in english that such an abundance of translations could be found***.
if you did the exercise i suggested of comparing the sound of passages from the KJV to another english language translation using the bible gateway site, depending upon what chapter and verse you examined, you would find to a greater or a lesser degree that the meaning of the passages differ. and that stands to reason: the usage of language is different now than then—words have changed meanings since 1611, after all. and while some of course clearly remain the same (e.g., john 3:16), others, esp certain passages in leviticus, differ.
but however folks read the bible, i think it vitally important for all people in the english-speaking world—indeed, all people in the western world—to read it, draw nearer to it. not just because IMV the bible, more than any other single thing in western civilization, is the force from which literature and language flow—either directly from it or in reaction thereto—but because it is the foundation upon which (again, IMV) everything else rests.
and i think that claim not merely quite defensible but indeed, invincible.
look at the evidence: some of the most beautiful music in world history (e.g., handel’s messiah) was written as a direct result of christianity and the bible; mozart’s faust simply couldn’t exist without the infernal deal struck by faustus; in architecture, cathedral-building drove understanding of engineering to new heights hitherto unknown; to say nothing of the effect on philosophy and literature.
to be sure, terrible things have been done in the name of christianity, supported by selectively-quoted passages from the bible. but the fact that madmen have attempted to manipulate the bible to justify their wrongs doesn’t mean that the bible truly supports them—a work that addresses all aspects of life and spans almost two millennia (or several more if we’re speaking of the jewish bible) is inevitably going to be read very willfully by the stupid or insane.
so to sum up: i think it vitally important for people in western civilization, irrespective of actual religious affiliation, to develop at least a modicum of familiarity with what’s in the bible and what it truly says. because it has a great deal to say, and say well. it has for a long time, and it will continue to for much longer than anyone bears any memory of any of us.
so with what translation of the bible are you most familiar: KJV, NIV, RSV, something else? or aren’t you? what is your degree of interest in the bible? comment and let me know.
ed
*hebrew is traditionally written without vowels. vowels do exist in hebrew, but these works were not written with them.
**well, besides the genealogies: i can only stomach so many “begats”…
***i believe that this is still true but would welcome clarification/correction from anybody who can help.
silverwhisper posted on Jun 18, 2007
| views: 886
Comments
-
wordman said on Jun 18, 2007....
I think what has happened is that religious scolars or Theologians, as it were, have molded translations to fit their individual beliefs. It is not just a matter of translating different languages so much as it is in translating different religious beliefs. Change a word here and there so it fits into our mindset. Each religion has it's own Bible version. If one believes that Jesus is God, then pick up a King James Version. If one believes that Jesus is with God then pick up a New World Translation.
In a nutshell darling, is the Bible actually the true Word of God or man? And, if it is God, then which Bible do we study?
-
fearing said on Jun 18, 2007....
I will be back later to finish reading this. Interesting. -
silverwhisper said on Jun 18, 2007....
wordman: there's a great deal of questioning people do of the translation work that's been done on the bible, and i suppose questioning the motives of the translators is inevitable. but bias is part of the reason that i hold to the ideal of examining different translations.
fearing: i'd be curious to know your thoughts when you've had some time to finish reading.
ed -
CreativeWoman said on Jun 18, 2007....
I will be back later as well. I have some thoughts but not the time at the moment to share them.
CW
-
fearing said on Jun 18, 2007....
Ed, Considering your agnostic view, I enjoyed reading what you had to say and your points about the Bible.
The following is my personal opinion only. My biggest thought about what I am going to say is we are really starting from 2 different places right? Agnostic and believer. One day, I pray that sentence would read differently.
I do not profess to have a great understanding of the Bible. I believe it to be the Living Word of God and who can understand Him? I'm not a Bible scholar and would rather not argue it's points lest I become a stumbling stone in my ignorance. I enjoy reading it and hearing it taught. I get something new each time I open it. I am simple by nature and so is my faith. Don't mistake me, I do not envy those who are far more intelligent because most of the time their brain causes them miss the truth their heart would see.
I smiled reading your list of acronyms like KJV, RSV and NRSV. I always have to do them in my head. lol. My daddy was a die hard fan of the KJV. You could almost get by with a NKJV in his presence. We affectionately teased him about it being a 'heathen check'. My older brother, just as founded in his faith and beliefs as Dad, uses a different translation. That point caused many a debate between them. Always just this side of heated but good-natured still. We grew up in a very legalistic church. It was a good church and taught the bible but still very legalistic.
I have many bibles. My two favorites are a Max Lucado KJV my father bought for me and the one I use the most which is a Ryrie Study Bible, also KJV. I love the notes in the Ryrie. A wealth of information. My pastor uses the NKJV. I am hesitant to use other translations mainly because I trust the King James (and NKJ). I've heard your arguments before from lots of people about the translations etc. I'm sure you could debate and argue me into a corner. I won't agree. My heart is convinced. The translation debates all seem like valid points. I just don't believe the God of the universe, who created everything in it, wouldn't be capable of creating a book to withstand human errors. We will have to agree to disagree.
I will admit the language is not always the easiest to understand. When I think about that I remind myself of the first Shakespeare play I ever saw. I sat in that theater for 30 minutes thinking I would not be able to make it through the entire play understanding any of what was being said. Shortly after that thought, it all began making perfect sense to me. I think about the Bible that way, it sort of comes to you after you begin reading it.
Misguided Christians have done many things to turn people away from God. I pray I am not one of them. I hate to hear people say what hypocrites Christians are. We are not perfect. I am not perfect. I fail. I sin.
I read your post about "My misgivings about Christian fundamentalism". I don't agree fully with everything you said - not meaning your view or opinion but how some things you interpreted i.e. Jesus replaced the 10 Commandments with "love your neighbor as yourself". Maybe, and probably, I misunderstood your point. I do not believe Jesus replaced the 10 Commandments for us to love our neighbor. I believe the 10 commandments are a point made by God to prove we can never be good enough to enter heaven. Jesus came and was sinless, died for our sins and paid the price for us. He did replace the Commandments and the old law but not so we could love each other. I believe He did it so we could be with Him.
Your other point on the 144,000 Jews saved during the tribulation is something I have a different view on also. That is a point that lots of people disagree on so it will be futile to go into.
You asked for my view, that is it. I'm only stating what and how I believe.
I don't ever want to use my faith as something to beat others up with. I believe right is right and wrong is wrong. My hope as a Christian is that you will see the Father in me and be blessed. It would break my heart to think I had a hand in strengthening any negative views you had of Him. Faith and views aside, I have respect for you and I make these points in that light, with a humble heart. -
ladyofspirit said on Jun 18, 2007....
What a great & interesting post!As a born again Christian of 15 years, the subject of Bible reading & scholarship is near & dear to my heart.Like many, I prefer the KJV. It's the one I cut my teeth on, the one I still use the most. The NKJV is decent -- but it doesn't flow (for me) like the KJV. Sure, it's easier to read, as are many of the translations, but you may be right, the lyrical quality just isn't there, like it is in the KJV.Also, though I'm a born-again, I am NOT a Biblical scholar. (I wish). I can already see you know way more about the Bible than I do. But I will say this -- I do have a pretty good knowledge about the stories in it, etc. Whether everything is completely & accurately translated from God Himself without any of "man's" agenda put into it is very debatable. But I think a lot of the essence of the Bible comes through no matter which translation is used.There's so much more I could babble out but I don't want to be obnoxious about it in your comments section.I need to go back & read some of your other posts on the Bible. I'll be back! -
muckpar said on Jun 18, 2007....
I read the KJV and the New Living Translation. It is written in more of today's language. I have compared it to the KJV and the meaning is the same, just worded differently.@fearing: I enjoyed your comment. Very well said. You also ladyofspirit. -
the_infernal_optimist said on Jun 18, 2007....
I'm most familiar with the KJV, though I also know the NIV and the NKJV fairly well.
I agree that it's of vital importance to study any text that has made a significant impact on pretty much everyone and everything (though I'm hard-pressed to think of others atm).
Religious texts are always interesting to me anyway (no surprise to you, I'm sure), and I hope to one day have an extensive library including many translations of these works that have so impacted humanity as a whole (not limited to Westerners and Western texts - I have Lao Tze's Tao Te Ching on my desk atm).
~Infernal
-
curmudgeon said on Jun 18, 2007....
Silver - a very well written and thoughtful history! Indeed the point you make about the commentaries on the Hebrew Bible is well stated. I'm really not sure why churches don't take advantage of what's been written so that we might increase our knowledge and appreciation of the Bible. Some probably do, and I did hear one preacher reference the commentaries in her sermon, but I haven't heard of one yet.I've read through the NRSV several times, and that's what I read throughout the year. When I first began trying to read the Bible I started with the KJV - not an easy book for a beginner. Although the language in KJV is indeed beautiful, other translations make it a bit more accessible for people who are relatively new or young in their Christian journey. Once people know the basic story and have studied a bit of biblical history, I think the appreciation for the language of the KJV will be even greater.I'll have to study the translation issues a bit more before I can comment in depth.As for whether the Bible is the Word of God, or word of Man, I don't see these things as mutually exclusive. With the exception of the Creation, which is in Genesis 1, most of God's work - meaning the next 1500 or so pages, as God's Work pertains to humans - is taken up by humans. It's only fitting that we take up God's Word in our hands and minds and hearts. How else could we possibly relate to it?Thank you for this post, Silver! Great job!c -
RollingC said on Jun 18, 2007....
I also will be back later to read this with more time....interesting subject and good post Silver.
Rc
-
lfbno7 said on Jun 19, 2007....
I have a book called Genesis and Exodus by Everett Fox. In the preface it says:
The present translation is guided by the principle that the Hebrew Bible, like much of the literature of antiquity, was meant to be read aloud, and that consequently, it must be translated with careful attention to rhythm and sound. This work, which therefore differs markedly from conventional translations, tries to reflect the particular rhetoric of the Hebrew wherever possible, preserving such devices as repetition, allusion, alliteration, and wordplay. It is intended to echo the Hebrew, and to lead the reader back to the sound structure and form of the original.
For example, Exodus 20:13. A footnote explains that some of the 10 commandments are just two words each. No murder! No adultery! No stealing! I also have a Hebrew/English Bible that shows the original Hebrew, and you can clearly see that these three commandments are only two Hebrew words each, the first of them being the word "Lo" meaning No.
When expressed this way, so compactly, it takes on more force. I can almost see God slamming a table with his fist as he lays down the law angrily.
Genesis 1:2 is surprisingly controversial in this translation. I've heard that this is the sentence that is responsible for Christian belief in a Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. But this translation defines "ruach" not as a holy spirit or holy ghost, but rather as the breath of God. In the footnote it says that the same Hebrew word, "ruach", which it spells "ruah", can also mean wind or spirit.
In my Hebrew version I see the phrase "ruach Elohim". It appears to be referring to something of God. The breath of God, or the spirit of God. It does not appear, in the original Hebrew, to be referring to a being that is separate from God in any way.
This book is chock full of things you are not used to seeing in the Hebrew Bible.
By the way, the "ch" in ruach is meant to be pronounced as if you are preparing to spit. It is not ch as in cheese. It is the same sound that begins the word Chanukah, which is easier for many people to change to Hanukkah and avoid the spitting sound.
-
silverwhisper said on Jun 19, 2007....
fearing: my thanks for such an elegant and diplomatic response. obviously, we disagree, but then again, were a believer and an agnostic to come away with identical readings of the scripture, that would perhaps be cause for some mild degree of concern for at least one of us, eh? :> i am not interested in debating the validity of various bible translations here--scholars smarter than me have assayed it and not succeeded in convincing everyone.
ladyof spirit: welcome to my blog and thank you for visiting! i completely understand the poetic appeal of the KJV--i truly do. :> but please, don't be concerned about the length of your comments here--i do enjoy a well-crafted comment so. :>
muckpar: i'll confess to being less than fully familiar with the NLT--i shall have to compare a few passages.
curmudgeon: thank you for understanding my intention with this blog entry! i own a copy of the NRSV and that's the translation i personally favor. my understanding of the philosophy behind the translators' approach is most consistent with my understanding and how i might approach the matter myself had i the education. i've often marveled re: the midrash but a possible explanation: the word "virgin" as we know it in english apparently is written in hebrew with a word understood to mean "young woman".
rollingc: take your time, man.
lbf: my thanks for your insights on the hebrew, esp the commandments--i agree with your statement about how they read in light of your comments re: the phrasing.
ed -
RollingC said on Jun 19, 2007....
I humbly refrain from discussing the Bible....Old or New Testament....as I really don't have the expertise to discuss fine points of view, although I must admit that the current Bible used by Christians must have been... by my own slow logic and wit... filtered at least a bit for translation understanding purposes.
That's not to say that the message has been altered for I think it hasn't...that man was put on this earth by God for a reason (original sin) and we must all prove ourselves before going to the Promised Land (Heaven).
Look at it this way... (a bit simplistic maybe)
God created the Universe and all in it. He also created the angels and the one angel that was made/created to be top angel rebelled against Him and tried to take as many angels with him as he could and they're now called the fallen angels as they all got kicked out of Heaven. That angel also tricked man...God's favorite creation...into disobedience thereby causing us to have original sin and now we must all prove ourselves before going into Heaven.
All of that is fine and dandy and it takes copious amounts of faith to stay on the straight and narrow, keeping to all the teachings and rules of regulations (like Canon Law) of the church that are meant to make saints out of all of us (or at least a large amount of us).
All I can really go by is my own personal experience with God. In the old testament there is talk about a white light or fog that encircled Moses's tent at night. I've had encounters with a white " Light " or presence and I've blogged about some of those encounters (not all just the significant ones) and those encounters have proven to me.... RollingC.... that God does exist and that there is life after death.
Let me tell you that the " White Light " or " Presence " that I experienced is a powerful entity that can do things that we certainly cannot. Like telling you or showing you the future....stopping or slowing time down to a crawl.... giving you an emotional greeting of Love that is so strong that it leaves you shaking like a leaf and actually scared me at the time.
The fine details of those experiences are really beyond me as I cannot start pondering or discussing things in general for I believe that they were meant for me but I assure you that anyone can have this experience...even those that don't believe in God for at the time that I had that first strong contact I had been withdrawn from the Church for many years and the last thing on my mind that day was God or the Church.
After all is said and done I only have more questions instead of answers.....
I'm not sure how this statement I've made fits into the blog/post theme but I guess the Bible is there to keep people on track with God while giving them the freedom to choose which path or way they'll follow.
My humble opinion
Rc
-
silverwhisper said on Jun 19, 2007....
rollingc, it's perfectly understandable that your thoughts on the matter would drift inexorably to the subject of your faith. it's a beautiful thing of which you write. thank you.
ed -
one_wired_kitty said on Jun 19, 2007....
I really enjoyed reading your post! Very thought provoking. -
silverwhisper said on Jun 19, 2007....
thank you, wired kitty, and thanks for visiting my blog. :>
ed -
truthsayer said on Jun 19, 2007....
: ) -
silverwhisper said on Jun 19, 2007....
that may be the shortest blog comment i've ever seen, truthsayer. :>
ed -
oatmeal said on Jun 20, 2007....
I'm reading;" god is not GREAT" learning
things I never new before about all religions. Was I brain wash for years ? -
silverwhisper said on Jun 20, 2007....
while that's theoretically possible, i somehow doubt it. in what religion were you raised? what have you learned since then to make you question it?
ed -
RollingC said on Jun 20, 2007....
God is one thing and Religion is another.
Don't know about other religions but the Catholic religion.....or rather....Catholics.... have done atrocities in the name of God many times in the past.
Rc
-
silverwhisper said on Jun 21, 2007....
it isn't just catholics who have--i think that just about every one of the major world religions has had followers do the same.
ed -
cotteralladams3 said on Jun 21, 2007....
It is difficult to me to answer it in any other way than to espouse the general Unitarian and Christian Universalist perspective. We believe all religions have merit and legitimacy and all people have a right to practice them. There is a philosophical belief in the universal brotherhood and sisterhood and also, a universal possibility of salvation in God, regardless of religion. This means that anyone else, say a Baha'i, Jew, Muslim or animist, can achieve salvation. It is a way of life, a mission, a community and a culture for us. It is not a take it or leave it matter but one of the reasons why the religion is so well-known but not popular is because it is clearly not for everyone. And while we could do missionary work, it tends to be outreach, relief efforts, peace activism and education that we focus on. Still, we must protect all rights of all people and help any who come to us, (in most situations). So basically missionary work is on the backburner but we are called to 'spread the gospel'. We wouldn't do this through aggressive means or convert people who follow Abrahamic religions. Not allowed.
So the Bible is sacred but we are not so literal. We must start with the Old Testament, then compare the New Testament and Nag-Hammadi, or Gnostic Gospels, to the First source. We have to find the central topic or theme, ask questions, look for parables, guidelines and values. I would have to take one excerpt of the Old Testament Scriptures, then one or two from the New Testament and then one from the Nag-Hammadi. The Dead Sea Scrolls are considered to be historical records of a Jewish tribe and are of important value as a spiritual reference but are not held up as being as sacred as the others. On original sin, it does happen and is mentioned in the Bible and some deny it, but we would probably conclude that it is a metaphor for human nature and a story about it. It would be the basis for asking for salvation and redemption because we have a corrupted nature and are not pure.
But we don't believe people automatically go to hell and are evil. We are not literalists in that sense. Literalism doesn't allow anyone to get to the real meaning of the Bible in a spiritual, moral or philosophical sense. Much as I may like Jack van Impe, I don't agree with all his interpretations and he focuses on the Apocalypse. We don't deny John's visions but don't define the whole society and faith by this part of the New Testament. On hell, we believe it is a place one can end up in for a period of time as a severe punishment but being in limbo or purgatory and asking for salvation or having to go through a spiritual phase on the other side is more likely to occur. You would have to be absolutely horrible to go to hell permanently. Nobody said it was a permanent condition forever.
-
silverwhisper said on Jun 21, 2007....
cotterall, is there a particular translation that you favor for devotional studies?
ed -
Trinov said on Jun 22, 2007....
I'm a speaker of Hebrew and a translater now by profession, and taught both Hebrew and English, and wrote a couple of Hebrew textbooks (one unpublished, one out of print)
I was not brought up 'observant' but in college I was told by a Rabbi's daughter that I was one of the most religious people that she knew. I learned that the difference is a holistic one. Now we are observant but we don't play into games of dressing like a certain public, but apply modesty to our own styles.
Okay, that may define me enough. The Torah or the five books of Moses (and I went into this on Rupert7's blog and may have pissed him off a bit, but he is sweet guy) was never intended for translation-ah you say G-d knows everything, so of course--well yes, there is what G-d would ‘prefer’ happening and there is free will.
In Alexandria 2000 and something years ago, there was interest in all sorts of philosophy and they wanted a translation of the Tanach (all the Jewish canon) so the Jewish community, not wanting to translate, gave them instead a secular history book which covered Biblical times, called Sefer HaYashar.(Available in English)
Now some idiot blabbed that this was not the Tanach and the government of Alexandria kidnapped 70 Jewish scholors and separated them and told them to translate or die. They prayed for help, that the translation would be as accurate as possible and not confuse people. You see, the Hebrew is written on so many levels at once, with so many hints on the plain text level itself, and many many methods of interpretation and even codes to use for the hidden levels that they had a problem. The Septuagent (or the seventy) translation was written as much to hide as to reveal.
So I very much appreciate your intelligent comments. Anyone who is brave enough and interested should try Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s colloquial English Torah, which is easy to read and packed with commentary and pictures of what is being spoken about-ie Kosher and non Kosher animals. (There are tribes in the mountains of South America who know what are the Kosher animals that are permitted for sacrifice, but they eat everything. This is what is remaining from the original religion of the sons of Adam and then Noah, the Noahide religion. Abraham and Issac and Jacob were Noahides, the Jews in Eygpt were Noahides, only after Sinai were the Jews taken out of this category and given 613 commandments, not 10, guys).
(Rabbi Kaplan was a Kabbalist and wrote many books, one of which dealt with the age of the world, and he brought a long essay by a 19th century Kabbalist who said that the world is 18 billion years old. )
Another great translation, much more scholarly is the ArtScroll series on every book of the Jewish canon, and it used to have three levels, a gong-ho level with lots of commentary, a family level with mid-sized commentary and a fast food level with a few lines for each page. This series gives you a much greater idea of the problem-- and the fun of understanding a book given by the Infinite that fits into the palm of your hand.
So as a translater of simple texts from one language to another I can go simply crazy reading people who think that their English translation of a translation etc can be the ultimate word of the Creator. There is a saying that the angels study the Torah also, and they don’t see any of the stories that we see from the straight text, they don’t see them at all.
All of the commandments were given to the Jews to be ‘G-d’s army’,and an army has a lot of commandments that civilians don’t need. If you are a soldier and don’t salute the lieutenant you are in deep shit, but saluting has nothing to do with a civilian. The basic intention of the Creator was the Noahide religion, which has seven basic commandments that any sentient being could figure out for himself when thinking about how to live in the world. For example : I don’t want to be murdered. I won’t murder. I don’t like to be in pain, I won’t cause pain to others, including animals. I don’t want my spouse screwing around, and I don’t want to be raped, so etc. There are Noahide communities now in American and they are on the web.
And one other point, in order to understand the commandments (and everything else), we need the commentaries, for it is known that while the Torah was given in a written form, the keys to understanding the abreviated allusions to the commandments were given only to Moshe/Moses. He gave them only to Joshua, Joshua gave them to the elders, the elders to the prophets and the prophets to the men of the Great Assembly in the Second Temple period. Only after that were the commentaries written down (The Mishnah) and then commented upon themselves (The Talmud, The Mishnah Torah, The Shoolchan Aruch and many many others).
Sorry for being so longwinded, but you can always delete me. And I’ll just make a blog about this someday, also in the chance that somebody may be intellectually curious and open enough to read it.
-
silverwhisper said on Jun 22, 2007....
trinov, i knew from truthsayer that you're a jew, but i didn't know that you're also a translator--your work makes you uniquely suited to comment!
i'll confess that i've become slightly suspicious of english translations of the torah--it's only in the past few years that i came to understand that there are a number of levels being addressed within the text simultaneously, rendering a full translation that captures the full meaning practically impossible--or so i would think.
i was unfamiliar with safar hayashar, thank you.
ed -
truthsayer said on Jun 23, 2007....
I told you it was a good post ed. : ) -
StupidGenius said on Jun 25, 2007....
I find it strange that so many people of god seem to know little about the faith which governs their lives? Without a fundamentle understanding of Bible how do people justify comments like, "I know there is a god but I confess I dont know alot about the bible" (This quote is not from this post but is something I have heard alot.)Your belief in God eminates from nothing if you have little to no understanding of what was written in regard to the history of your faith. -
RollingC said on Jun 25, 2007....
I'm one of those people that did not know anything (much of) the Bible until I had my experience....then I started to educate myself a little bit at a time. Still have a lot of catching up to do and the problem is that every time I answer my own question about the Bible (or theology issues) at least 3 more pop up.
Rc
-
silverwhisper said on Jun 25, 2007....
truthsayer: i suppse you did indeed: thank you. :>
stupidgenius: well, proof denies faith... :>
rollingc: eduation about theology is invariably a worthwhile endeavor, IMHO. :>
ed -
StupidGenius said on Jun 26, 2007....
"Proof denies faith" So does that mean that you do not seek the truth, does it mean that you simply believe in god without any understanding of what you believe in? That’s good. I’m am god, you should believe that... if you don’t then why don’t you trust me or have faith that I am telling the truth. I think that even if god was irrevocably proven to be a total lie that religions would simply continue in blissful ignorance. -
silverwhisper said on Jun 26, 2007....
the existence of god can't be logically proven. it's that simple. centuries of philosophers smarter than you and me put together have failed. at its heart, the existence of god is a matter of belief, and the value of proof, as an intrinsic tool of reason, is zero.
ed -
truthsayer said on Jun 26, 2007....
Silverwhisper, with all due respect, it is only illogical for an unbeliever to 'prove God' to themselves; or to others' for that matter. It most certainly is not impossible for God to prove Himself to one who is truly willing to seek Him. If you would, or could, think outside of your comfort zone, and believe in possibilities (or in quantum physics, probabilities) instead of thinking the way you have always thought, like we all tend to do...you would find 'more things in Heaven and earth Horatio', than you have heretofore imagined.Let me ask you one question, if I may. When Elijah called down the Fire of G-d, to burn up the altar, the offering, and everything (even the water) for the benefit of proving God (after all of their pleas to their false gods had failed), or showing Him, to the pagans...would you then believe? Would you then have your proof? Or would you still argue semantics over the english word, "believe"? When will you realize that you play a vital role in what you are willing, or able to perceive?This is a good post, and shows growth from others you have posted in the past...it is much more wholistic. I do not wish to impede your growth, but to encourage you to new levels of understanding. You may consider my questions as philosophical, or rhetorical even, if you prefer not to answer...I am as well with no response as with a response my friend. It is just that I am concerned for your soul.There is only one time, one circumstance, that I know of, that He gives us permission and invitation to prove Him, or test Him. That is in Malachi, and it would have little relevance for you, at this time anyway.Here is my concern: If you are only willing to accept empirical evidense, that is to say, repeatable experiments (not just personal observation)...then you are destined to never know the Creator that made you. Suffice to say that if you demand the ways of man, from G-d, you will never be able to know Him. You can, on the other hand, ask Him to reveal Himself to you; in the scriptures and in your daily life; if you haven't already. : )truthsayerStill praying,truthsayer -
Antimatter said on Jun 26, 2007....
Truthsayer, the problem is that we can never distinguish between personal observation and hallucination. People who believe something passionately will naturally filter experiences to validate that belief; we want our convictions to be correct. Self-experience therefore introduces an intrinsic conflict of interest. Why should I trust your self-experience over that of the friendly Mormon missionary telling me about his religious experiences?
-
truthsayer said on Jun 26, 2007....
That is a good question Antimatter. As to distinguishing between personal observation and hallucination, I assume you are speaking of having this spiritual experience, or as you say, 'hallucination' when one is alone, right? No witnesses, or people that can corroborate (sp) the experience?truthsayer -
silverwhisper said on Jun 27, 2007....
truthsayer, there's simply no philosophical/logical argument that withstands scrutiny. none. you've studied philosophy. so have i, so if i'm incorrect, show me the argument.
belief doesn't arise from logic, truthsayer. and at the end of the day, that's as it should be, IMHO, b/c intuition cannot be trumped by logic about some things.
ed -
cotteralladams3 said on Jun 27, 2007....
King Jame's Bible. I am not a fan of the New International Version. I certainly can appreciate The Message. You can also purchase many different Bibles. It is necessary to have the Nag-Hammadi and a good working knowledge of the Torah and Talmud. Of course, these appear in the Old Testament. I do not have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls but have a shortcut online to a link, along with a link to http://www.gnosis.org and http://www.biblegateway.com. Always useful as references. As a Unitarian, one must have a knowledge of key writings of the leaders and a knowledge of what is referred to as Jesus' oral traditions. I know a lot about the stories of Jesus' relationship with John, his walking through the streets of Jerusalem while talking to the people, his turning water into wine. These are legends and are described in the New Testament but we have to go a little further, a bit like creating a passion play to understand how it was back then in a historical context. -
silverwhisper said on Jun 27, 2007....
biblegateway is a resource i favor, myself. i'll confess i'm a bit surprised by your preference for the KJV, but i'm sure that's a matter you've considered deeply. if you're inclined to do so, i'd be curious to know the evolution of your thinking on the matter.
ed -
truthsayer said on Jun 27, 2007....
Hi ed:I was looking for papers online, written by some of my favorite philosophers, when I stumbled, or was lead, to this website. I will post two links. One to the general page with a whole list of articles, and one, hopefully, to the paper I just read.First, here is the link to a great paper that I just read:It is highly relevant and well written.Here is a link to a host of wonderful papers/articles:BTW:Are you interested in a philosophy article/paper using inductive or deductive reasoning?truthsayer -
silverwhisper said on Jun 28, 2007....
thank you, truthsayer. i will try to read them when i have a chance. shoot me a link to the third article when you have a chance. i probably won't be able to respond to this for a while, though.
ed -
silverwhisper said on Jun 28, 2007....
truthsayer: OK, about those 2 links...
on the dualism article, i find the writer's assertion about dualism unnecessarily, well, didactic. the first position, which the author never names but i will call ephemeral--a name no more or less pejorative than his/her own "materialism"--is set up to attack a straw man as represented by the position called materialism. it happens to share some of your own assumptions and preconceptions, though, which may be why you seem not to perceive it as i do. it also evinces little understanding of current cognitive theory: according to cognitive theory, personality is the product of associations in a person's mind, associations formed through neurochemistry. these associations therefore would still presumably exist after measurable brain activity ceases and hence the clinically dead --> resuscitated stories are not a refutation of it. in short, that article is pure fluff, preaching to the choir. i don't know this site but i have grave misgivings about their interest in good faith scientific inquiry.
this link cannot possibly be the one you intended to link, unless you are seriously suggesting that i should re-read every single one of those articles? not to be rude, but that's an absolutely preposterous burden, truthsayer. did you perhaps mean one of the articles linked on this page? because i thought you said that there was a philosophical argument that you felt successfully made a pro-theism argument and i'm not gonna sift through all of those links to find it.
i gotta be honest, i really have to question how serious you are about our exchange here, truthsayer. as someone who's studied philosophy, you're already familiar w/ the ontological and cosmological arguments. you haven't even bothered naming them, and i assumed that was because you recognized that i was already familiar with them and already knew the counter-arguments.
shall we try again?
ed -
lidstrom82 said on Jul 18, 2007....
*throws his two cents in*
I agree with truthsayer - in order to know God, you have to seek Him by His rules. You cannot sit back and be told proof. That's the "Teen Spirit" mentality - "here we are now, entertain us." You can't sit back and tell God "prove it." You can't ask Christians either, because the matter is settled for them. You can't live vicariously through other Christians to understand God for yourself.
Any invitation or challenge to people I've made to seek God has met with silence, or a bunch of hot air. You wonder if they even listened.
Here's a thought: if GOd is playing by different rules, then that means that "smarter" people don't necessarily understand God better than the common man. "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Too much education and knowledge CAN cause pride in your own knowledge, and when you assert from philosophies that say God does not exist, you're only serving to drive a wedge between you and God. The guy sent His Son, the savior of the world, down to Earth to make things right for you and Him. And we killed Him. We reject Him today. And at the very least, we doubt Him.
It seems the popular thing to doubt that the Bible has been preserved as best as possible over millennia, since before written word was widely established, by people who took it very seriously. Monks who found one error in a transcript would throw out the whole thing and start over. Scholars would learn Greek and Hebrew to take the oldest surviving texts and painstakingly translate it as closely as possible, doing their best to retain the message even when one language didn't have a word for a concept identified in the original language. All this, and that the Bible holds accountable and responsible anyone who adds or alters the Word of God. That doesn't stop everyone (ahem, Mormons), but they'll be taken care of one way or another.
To the best of human ability, the Bible has been preserved.
I no longer believe the Bible is completely inerrant, because only God is perfect. His Word is perfect, and He can work in imperfect people to produce perfect words. However, typos and human mistakes do exist in some (not all) translations. Does this undermine the entire whole of Scripture? No, it doesn't, just as one misspelled sentence in a science book doesn't refute the entire document.
Sometimes Christians are bashed for not acknowledging that any other religion is true. But hey, if the Bible explains Jesus is savior and heals my infirmities, physical, emotional, or spiritual, then I believe it. Because I have an emptiness that media and fun distractions cannot permanently fill. I need a knowledge that gives me hope that science cannot provide. Does that make me weak, to acknowledge my own insufficiencies? I argue that it makes me stronger, rather than trying to keep up with the Joneses or appearing to have it all together. "A man is no fool to lose what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." In other words, choosing God over the philosophies and teachings of the world will benefit me beyond this life. Science tells me my body will die one day. God tells me that a life lived for Him gives me eternal life. And that is how I don't have to fear death. Jesus conquered it when He died in our place. He bridged the gap between man and God. And human history has never been the same since.
-
silverwhisper said on Jul 18, 2007....
lidstrom quoth:
scholars would learn greek and hebrew to take the oldest surviving texts and painstakingly translate it as closely as possible, doing their best to retain the message even when one language didn't have a word for a concept identified in the original language. all this, and that the bible holds accountable and responsible anyone who adds or alters the word of god.
the first english biblical translation to feature actual knowledge of hebrew was post-KJV, don't you think? i find the utility of the septuagint compromised, myself.
as to the rest of your comment, i think you've confused a comment box for a a pulpit. not that you don't use it well, mind. :>
i am very glad to read that you no longer hold with fundamentalism. may i ask what drove you away from that manner of reading the bible?
ed -
lidstrom82 said on Jul 18, 2007....
haha, a pulpit? Say wha?
I'll leave you to decide whether this is true of yourself, silver, but I am wary of the mere mention of "Christian things" setting triggers off with people who are familiar with the Bible but don't actually know it. They have a lackadaisical attitude toward the Bible because they think they know the gist of it, and it's cool, but they don't base their live around it. That's their decision.
But whenever I hear comments about "you're preaching", whether directed at me or another, it usually characterizes disillusionment with the Bible in the person who said it. But not always. What's your motivation for the preaching comment, silver? Are you making a joke, or have you heard enough sermons? :)
-
silverwhisper said on Jul 18, 2007....
lidstrom: you haven't read many of my blog entries that i know of, so you probably don't know much about me. so i will tell you.
1. i write very infrequently about theology, but when i do, i feel that i have a responsibility to treat the topic seriously, with the kind of consideration that would leave no cause for dissatisfaction by any reasonable believer. i take that responsibility very seriously--some of my dearest friends are christians and i would not ill-treat something they hold so dear. frankly, there are times that i think i treat it with more respect than some who call themselves christians.
2. i'm not disillusioned with the bible.
i made that pulpit comment b/c about 2/3s or so of your comment appears to have no connection with either the blog entry or the ensuing conversation, exactly. and it does have the character of a sermon. and as i also said, i thought it well said.
so...any chance you're going to answer my question re: your departure from fundamentalism? :>
ed -
lidstrom82 said on Jul 18, 2007....
I admit man, it's hard to read through the entire blog. But if the post regards the Bible, I'd like to think my comments on it still apply :)
I could have connected the dots better in terms of one thing: you spoke about philosophers smarter than us in terms of the existence of God. My response to that was many philosophers will assume their wisdom is best, and if it rules out God, then that counts as arrogance. That drives a wedge between them and God. And in my eyes, they're not exactly smarter than someone who takes the Bible at face value. So that does apply to this blog.
Also, agreeing with truthsayer in terms of "proof of God" was also relevant to this blog. The rest were my thoughts on the validity of the Bible. So I apologize that it wasn't immediately clear, but it's not as out of touch with the blog as it seemed.
I appreciate your care concerning the matter, because not everyone respects the beliefs of others.
And thank you for the compliment that it was well said. I take it seriously as well. But try not to take it TOO seriously so as to be offended at every question of the Christian faith. That is hard when you've got people drinking their Hate-orade. :)
-
silverwhisper said on Jul 18, 2007....
lidstrom: i was sure they did somehow--it's just that how they applied was less than clear to me. :>
lidstrom, you appear convinced that proving the existence of god logically is a meaningful objective. i disagree, although frankly, having had this discussion with friends whose faith matters a great deal to them, i think i understand your reasons, all the same.
heh..."hate-orade"--i really like that. :D
again: no time now to discuss your parting ways with fundamentalism? :>
ed -
lidstrom82 said on Jul 18, 2007....
heh heh sorry, I addressed all those other points except fundamentalism. And I think you've got a good perspective on how seeking God is a meaningful objective to some, and not to others. Christianity definitely commissions its followers to make disciples of all nations, not as militant Islam or pushy door-to-door sects, but spreading Christ's love. The Bible's pretty clear about the human condition with Jesus, so that's where the urgency comes from. To me, people can't fully live on Earth without it, and they'll live even worse after they die. In light of that, I don't want negative consequences reaped by my fellow man. It's not just out of "the bible told me so," it's out of love for others so they enjoy a blessed rest of this life and paradise in the next.
About fundamentalism...honestly silver? That word has been used as a label that either doesn't encompass all of mainstream Christianity, or it's been used in a derogatory way. It is a confusing term for me because if you just follow Jesus, you could be labeled all sorts of things, but most of them aren't true.
So having said that, what is your definition of fundamentalism? Or even better, do you know that 100% accurate definition of the word in regards to Christians?
-
silverwhisper said on Jul 18, 2007....
well, the comments have been coming fast & furious which is why i didn't assume it was an intentional omission, lidstrom. :> re: my understanding of christian fundamentalism: i leave it you to judge. other christians i've known have understood the term as i describe it in the linked blog entry.
ed -
lidstrom82 said on Jul 18, 2007....
I read your post on the link you left, and I understand those points. I'm still looking for a clear answer and will find one at some point.
To answer your points in the linked post, Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testament, and while that does render many things obsolete (no more circumcision, no more burnt offerings, burning incense to God, that kind of thing), it is also important for Christians to know the origins of their faith. Many Jews today are still awaiting a Messiah, while other sects have given up. They do not recognize Jesus Christ as that messiah, and I think that's because He came as humble teacher, not a conquering hero that would topple the Roman Empire that often persecuted the Jews. But it's good that Jesus fulfilled the original covenant: it opened God's grace to not only Jews, but everyone else.
As for the 144,000, much of Revelation is metaphorical. It is hard to tell sometimes when the Bible is literal and when it's metaphorical, but you hit upon something interesting: not everyone will get to Heaven, but the number of people who have ever lived is huge compared to 144,000. In looking at Revelation right now, it appears possible that those 144,000 are only the faithful that remain after all the trials and tribulations of the End Times. That doesn't encompass every Christian in history. I say this because it says "This great choir sand a wonderful new song in front of the throne of God and before the four living beings and the twenty four elders. No one could learn this song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth." Rev 14-3
But before that, it also says, "After this I saw a vast crowd, too great to count, from every nation and tribe and people and language, standing in front of the throne and before the Lamb (Jesus). They were clothed in white robes and held palm branches in their hands. And they were shouting with a mighty shout,
"Salvation comes from our God who sits on the throne of the Lamb!"
It also says "Then he said to me, "These are the ones who died in the great tribulation (or suffering). They have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb and made them white."
So there is a great number of people who survived a great period of suffering. Was that a disaster in the End Times? Is that referring to a life on Earth? Who knows...but there is a great multitude too great to count, in the presence of God, in Revelation. They're been washed by the blood of the Lamb, in that their sins are forgiven and washed by Jesus' death and resurrection; they are saved. So in essence, there are more than just 144,000 total saved people in history, probably too great to count. But we won't know until either Jesus returns like Revelation foretells, or we die and experience Heaven.
-
silverwhisper said on Jul 18, 2007....
lidstrom: i agree that understanding the origins of the faith is valuable, but for devotional purposes?
i agree that revelation is extremely problematic to understand literally b/c it's so explicitly metaphoric in nature.
rev 14:3 (NIV) is interesting, although i'm not sure i agree with your reading of it. however, i suppose that scriptural interpretation is bound to be problematic in such a discussion. :>
ed -
lidstrom82 said on Jul 18, 2007....
In terms of metaphorical prophecy/vision, interpretation is crazy! Our best guess is based on what we know of God in previous books in Scripture. But sometimes, we won't understand things, and we'll need to trust God by His promises.
For devotional purposes, it speaks to the character of God that He had enormous amounts of patience for such an ungrateful following of people. It is also important to note that even when He was sorry He created humanity and creation just to watch it become evil and wicked, He still allowed Noah to survive and to rebuild the human race in hopes of a more believing people.
There are great truths we can glean from where the history of Christianity (and Judaism) came from. The Old Testament is invaluable in that it shows how things were before Jesus, and it makes us appreciate Him all the more.
-
silverwhisper said on Jul 18, 2007....
you know, for some reason i was expecting to disagree with you more than we've been, lidstrom. :>
my thanks for an interesting and fun exchange. :>
ed -
lidstrom82 said on Jul 18, 2007....
Yeah, maybe we mellowed out in our old age :) -
silverwhisper said on Jul 18, 2007....
that sounds reasonable. :D
ed -
boyzmom said on Jul 18, 2007....
I will read this later, I use the NIV version mainly but have a NKJ version also. -
StupidGenius said on Jul 19, 2007....
Do people pick a version of the bible that makes the most sense/easy to read? How do you choose the version you are going to read.SG -
silverwhisper said on Jul 19, 2007....
boyzmom: take your time! :>
SG: IMX, people select a translation based upon intended usage. for example, while the scholarship behind the KJV is IMV suspect, there's no denying it sounds pretty darned gorgeous, but the outdated language are an obstacle to ready comprehension for most modern readers. i find that of the more contemporary language bibles, the NIV translation is most commonly preferred, although there are certainly doctrinal reasons why other translations are periodically used.
ed -
lidstrom82 said on Jul 19, 2007....
That's a good response, silver. The KJV has been very influential, not just for making the Bible sound like a bunch of "thou's" and "thy's" :) But there was an instance where it had actually changed Scripture because of a perceived error. It was concerning Goliath, and another person named Goliath was mentioned afterward. The KJV translators apparently assumed it was the same Goliath, so they tweaked it a bit. The reason I was able to realize this was because I cross-referenced it with another translation or two or three (I think the NIV, New Living, and Oxford).
It would be nice if there was one translation for all time, but imperfect man's interpretation of the same words vary greatly. On the other hand, continual efforts to translate God's Word effectively shows a passion and a desire for blessing others that is to be commended. For instance, some older churches will ridicule the contemporary, almost folksy language of The Message, but in all honesty, The Message doesn't have the poetic, often confusing language of other translations - and that makes all the difference for someone who isn't highly educated, or didn't grow up in the church. Different translations have different strengths and functions.
And for anyone seeking God, or seeking to understand Christianity, referencing several translations is of great good in order to compare, but especially to share with others who might hear one style of language better than another.
-
silverwhisper said on Jul 19, 2007....
thank you, lidstrom, for that detailed response. it's an important question, and perhaps a particularly tricky one for the non-christian, i think.
ed -
pepperman said on Jan 29, 2008....
Hi Silver, have you thought about studying Hebrew for yourself? :-) -
silverwhisper said on Jan 29, 2008....
hey there, pepperman! welcome to my blog and thank you for visiting!
i have enough trouble w/ the languages i know that rely on the roman alphabet as it is--getting used to reading right to left would probably make my brain explode! :>
i haven't given the matter serious thought: in an ideal world featuring unlimited free time i'd certainly attempt such an undertaking, but clearly, that world is not this world, you know? :>
ed -
pepperman said on Jan 29, 2008....
Yeah, I know what you mean. There is not enough time to do all the things we want to do.
I like your blog, and I associate with this article. I too am agnostic... I don't think we can know the answer objectively - difinitively.
Leila Tov (Goodnight)
-
silverwhisper said on Jan 29, 2008....
pepperman: now that's a fascinating article--thank you for linking it! it seems to me that judaism, as i understand it, is based upon obedience to the law, that belief as it's commonly understood in western society is largely immaterial so long as one's behavior is consistent with the law. hm...
and a good night to you!
ed -
Trinov said on Jan 30, 2008....
Hi, this of course showed up on my email screen. The first commandment is to know G-d. The Stone edition has this translation 1) I am HaShem (Divine name substitute) your G-d who has taken you out of the land of Eygpt from the house of slavery, 2) you shall not recognise the gods of others.......The basic concept of Judasim is to recognise that there is the Creator of the Universe, and that he has chosen the Jews to be his servants, to behave in a certain way that will assure their physical, moral and spiritual existence, and to be an example to others, so that they too will recognise the Creator and behave in a way that preserves their physical, moral and spiritual existence......This is the basis and all the laws are there to provide a framework for this mission......of course many Jews, and most gentiles to this date, do not want to recognise their Creator, since this would obligate them to behave respectively not only to the Creator but to his Creations--ie not to destroy wantonly his forests, not to use wantonly his creatures (ie killing a fish just for its fins, destroying herds of Buffalo to destroy the Amerindians who used the land and resources with full respect, using a worker with as little pay as possible and then throwing him out in the street at age 45, etc). It is sometimes so comfortable to abuse one's body, to abuse others, to just take and not give, and also to be very self-righteous about this. The laws that the Creator gave to the Jews are against this human tendency. He made us, and he gave the User Manuel in two versions-- the laws of Moses for the Jews and Jews only and for the non-Jews the 7 Laws of Noah, they both are the guidelines to a successful stay on this earth. The 7 laws of Noah are laws that any intelligent person could figure out for him or herself -if he or she were to ask the question: How can we live together in a functioning civilization that will last... There are Noahide websites and Noahide congregations in America if anyone is curious. By keeping the 7 laws the sons of Noah, ie the inhabitants of this earth, will live morally and will have all the promises of Heaven in the afterlife and in the next incarnations and there is no need to take on additional laws given to the Jews at Sinai, just as a civilian has no need to take on military rules--which are totally irrelevant to him. -
pepperman said on Jan 30, 2008....
silverwhisperer
You have a very typical Christian view of Judaism. I am sure we could have some interesting theological discussions in the future. :-)Trinov
That is a pretty good summary. There is a lot more that can be said when another religion claims authority/legitimacy from Jewish law. :-) -
silverwhisper said on Jan 31, 2008....
hello, trinov! i have a friend (another gentile) whose theology inclines towards the noahide laws. :>
pepperman: actually, my understanding is informed largely by a friend who studied to become an orthodox rabbi. and the reason i'm on SC is to learn, so i hope that we do indeed have more such discussions. :>
ed -
one_wired_kitty said on Feb 07, 2008....
As for me - the versions I prefer are TNIV and NKJV. They're just simply easier for me to understand. I got horribly confused with all the thee's, thou's and thine's.
1) I do NOT believe the earth is 10,000 years old.
2) I do believe there were dinosaurs
3) I do believe in evolution/adaption to a certain extent
-
silverwhisper said on Feb 07, 2008....
1WK: goodness, how'd you find this old blog entry?
i don't believe i'm familiar w/ the TNIV translation--ah, here it is! interesting, this is a very new translation, isn't it?
yeah, i'm not a big fan of the KJV for reading purposes. it sounds great, though, no question.
ed -
Trinov said on Feb 08, 2008....
Just a note, timing from the Bible --it is only hints, for how long is a day for G-d?. We are 'b'nai adam', the children of Adam, but there is nothing that says there were not other humans, for instance, whom did Cain fear would attack or reproach him? Anyone taking the Bible literally on the level of exact wording --and in translation at that--has a problem.
The Five Books of Moses are to be read in Hebrew on a multiplication of levels --which is how it is supposed to be learned. It is not a book that is supposed to be learned on the elementary school level and then tucked away and not re-learned over and over with many insights and interpretations as the mind grows and acquires experience, learning and understanding.
And so I see anyone who is either stuck in a six year old understanding of creationism, or especially in an adolescent religious unthinking belief in 'evolution' (ie-- I am the center of the world and there is no one,-- no daddy or creator-- who can tell me how to live my life etc) as a 'self-made moran'-- who has not taken the oportunity to use his or her own eyes and ears or to think coherently, to see the remarkable design of the Creator, which is evident in every natural thing, and in the human brain's capacity for abstarct thought as well.
There is a remarkable video produced by a Christian site called "The Watchmaker" which reminds me of a story. I suggest everyone finding this video on utube or where-ever--I got it on an email.
The story was that an intellectual came to visit a friend of his who was an artist. The artist was busy and the friend walked around the apartment looking at this and that until the friend could wash up and change his clothes after painting for a few hours. When the artist came out and they shook hands, the intellectual praised his friend's talents in drawing an imazing ink painting of incredible detail that he had noticed on a small table in the living room.---"But I didn't draw that," the artist protested. "You know that I don't work with ink, just with paint!"---- "But then who drew it?' asked his friend.---- "Nobody, that's just an ink blot, I spilled some ink and ink just flowed into those patterns by itself". ---"Are you out of your mind? What have you been drinking or smoking that you would believe me to be such a idiot to believe such a ridiculous story! You are insulting my intelligence. Just look at the details, how beautifully the flowers are portrayed, how lively the children's faces and how gracefully the women are drawn in their dancing and just look how the muscles are tight on the workmen who are putting up that house! What loving detail! How could you imagine that I could believe you?" --"Well", said the artist, "you tell me that there is no Creator and that evolution just randomly created the sun and moon, the monkey and the giraff, the whale and the microbe, and man." -
silverwhisper said on Feb 08, 2008....
trinov: i'll confess, i'm finding the umpteenth iteration of the ontological argument kinda tedious. also, that story, by making the other character an artist, leaves open the possibility that the artist created it, don't you think?
ed -
lidstrom82 said on Feb 08, 2008....
Haha what?! Ontological arguments becoming tedious?
I think it's entirely possible that someone can outsmart themselves into a nonbelief in God. In other words, the belief that one is "too smart" to believe in God doesn't help the person who adopts it when God shows up. God may not punish them, but it certainly hurts a person when using intellectualism to disprove a God that is BEYOND the human brain.
With that said, I'm not accusing you of that, silver...I mean, you mentioned once that you attended a church...a church of what, exactly, didn't come up, but I wonder if people get bored or find support of God tedious because of something wrong with their outlook, i.e. like a child becoming spoiled and expecting their rich parents to give them everything - They've clearly lost the ability to appreciate what they have. -
silverwhisper said on Feb 08, 2008....
lidstrom: you cannot construct a philosophical argument pro or con the existence of god. people smarter than you and me put together have attempted to do so for centuries and failed. the ontological argument's been a failure for centuries, man, hence the tediousness.
ultimately, if god exists, god transcends logic, IMHO. logic is like having a lego set in which you try to assemble your arguments/pieces and try to construct from it something perfect and ineffable from imperfect and limited pieces.
ed -
lidstrom82 said on Feb 08, 2008....
Well said, man.
Logic only goes so far when it comes to God, certainly. I believe the reason why is because God is meant to be approached by us through faith, not with logic. I also believe that God's existence is supported to an extent by logic, as well as pointed to in things like nature, the human condition, the benefits of living in accordance with the Bible, among others.
But the reason for the tediousness of ontological arguments is because people smarter than you and I went about it all wrong - they argued for and against God with their minds, instead of seeking them with their heart. The Bible says as much in regards to people who pride themselves in knowledge.
And because of that, you could debate whether those people are actually more foolish than you or I :)
-
silverwhisper said on Feb 08, 2008....
well, i'd argue that the mere existence of such arguments points to endemic foolishness as being part & parcel of the human condition. :>
perhaps they weren't more foolish so much as more daring? :>
ed -
lidstrom82 said on Feb 08, 2008....
Yeah, daring makes sense...it depends on the condition of the person. If they genuinely grapple with the existence of God with such arguments, they usually either choose intellectualism and their own knowledge, or they surrender to God. Skeptics might say they lose their brains when following God, but I would respectfully disagree.
So yeah dude, I agree that questioning honestly is daring for sure. We have way too many people these days who follow God without knowing why for themselves. However, I would think that ontological arguments without a genuine grappling about having God in your life is extremely foolish, because as you pointed out, it does get tedious. The arguments for and against are basically sitting on a fence, yelling to one side or the other. Without getting off the fence and making a personal choice, you just stay on the rail and your butt starts to hurt. -
silverwhisper said on Feb 09, 2008....
precisely: the entire library of philosophy trying to answer the question of "does god exist" is ultimately a waste of time, apart from the fact that it helped a lot of people sharpen their skills.
ed
Comment on "on the nature of the bible"
Related Posts:
Humanity
posted 6 days ago
| views: 17
|
We are Taliban ( Wishful) of Peace and love and Taliba-E- Elm ( Student of God’s Wisdom)... read entire post
truthsayer
posted 5 days ago
| views: 215
|
Not to be mistaken for the Flaky Cafe'!!!Mysticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
Mysticism (my trusty Webster's New World dictionary):
The doctrine or beliefs of mystics; specif., t... read entire post
MsBradford07
posted 5 days ago
| views: 57
|
Being on this site and meet people of various ethnic background and different beliefs.... read entire post
WriterCarlDobbs
posted 5 days ago
| views: 54
|
Simply, the answer is NO! It doesn't jibe with the rudimentary doctrines of Jesus or even our own sense of morality. Who can condemn a newborn baby for sin? Who can say Adam condemned us all by sinning? It's a crazy concept!... read entire post