Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 " Tom, what Inger wrote might be incorrect in your opinion, but not all religious people have the same opinion as you. Not all churches will interpret the bible in the same way. " Lida Lida, That's true. However, I want to point out that there is a fundamental difference between interpretation and translation and that if people read the Bible (any version of it) the way it was TRANSLATED, there would be little room for INTERPRETATION. Most Bibles are translated from Greek and Hebrew texts,(and other Bibles are based on later translations) and the more commonly used versions of the Bible have very few differences between them, most of these differences being word choices which hardly change the meaning of the original text. Thus I feel comfortable picking up MOST Bibles and reading them knowing that they are all ALMOST exactly alike and for all practical purposes, ALMOST interchangable. What people tend to do is take the Bible and say " I know what it says, what does it mean? " My answer to that is that the Bible means what it says. In the time in which the Bible was written, very few people could actually read, and the point of writing things down was to ensure that there would be nothing lost through telling and retelling the same stories different ways. In other words, what was written was what was meant to be said. And if something different was meant to be said, it would have been written. People and churches and denominations of the Christian faith can read into the Bible whatever they want, but that doesn't change the fact that whatever they want may not be what was written or intended. Interpretation of the Bible is not only self-deceiving, it is sacreligious. Take a look at the US Constitution. It also means what it says. Period. If you want to change what it says, you DON'T reinterpret it, you AMMEND it. The Bible is a document that cannot be ammended. It just is. Jesus scorns anyone who tries to re-interpret what God wants in their own way: Mat 15:4 For instance, God says, `Honor your father and mother,' and `Anyone who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death.' Mat 15:5 But you say, `You don't need to honor your parents by caring for their needs if you give the money to God instead.' Mat 15:6 And so, by your own tradition, you nullify the direct commandment of God. Mat 15:7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was prophesying about you when he said, Mat 15:8 `These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away. Mat 15:9 Their worship is a farce, for they replace God's commands with their own man-made teachings.' " The Bible was made the way it was and was not meant to be changed. Jesus even EXPLAINS why it is people delude themselves with interpretations rather than facts here: Mat 13:10 His disciples came and asked him, " Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people? " Mat 13:11 Then he explained to them, " You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not. Mat 13:12 To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them. Mat 13:13 That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand. Mat 13:14 This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning. Mat 13:15 For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'* Mat 13:16 " But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. Mat 13:17 I assure you, many prophets and godly people have longed to see and hear what you have seen and heard, but they could not. There are many other places where prophets, disciples, and other Biblical characters warn against interpreting parts of the Bible or all of it. This is the one that comes to mind the most (I could add others, but do not want to enter a more extensive religious debate): Rev 22:18 And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book. Rev 22:19 And if anyone removes any of the words of this prophetic book, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 Tom, As a translator I am aware of the fact that translations always are interpretations as well. No one can ever claim to know what a writer wanted to say with his words, apart from the writer himself. It already happens in a forum like this: how many times did persons misunderstand what someone else has written, although both even were brought up in the same country and speak the same language? It probably took you a lot of work to put all the examples of bible texts, I suppose. That was nice of you. Personally I have nothing special with the bible or with any other religion. Lida "Tom, what Inger wrote might be incorrect in your opinion, but not all religious people have the same opinion as you. Not all churches will interpret the bible in the same way."LidaLida,That's true.However, I want to point out that there is a fundamental difference between interpretation and translation and that if people read the Bible (any version of it) the way it was TRANSLATED, there would be little room for INTERPRETATION.Most Bibles are translated from Greek and Hebrew texts,(and other Bibles are based on later translations) and the more commonly used versions of the Bible have very few differences between them, most of these differences being word choices which hardly change the meaning of the original text. Thus I feel comfortable picking up MOST Bibles and reading them knowing that they are all ALMOST exactly alike and for all practical purposes, ALMOST interchangable.What people tend to do is take the Bible and say "I know what it says, what does it mean?" My answer to that is that the Bible means what it says.In the time in which the Bible was written, very few people could actually read, and the point of writing things down was to ensure that there would be nothing lost through telling and retelling the same stories different ways. In other words, what was written was what was meant to be said. And if something different was meant to be said, it would have been written.People and churches and denominations of the Christian faith can read into the Bible whatever they want, but that doesn't change the fact that whatever they want may not be what was written or intended. Interpretation of the Bible is not only self-deceiving, it is sacreligious. Take a look at the US Constitution. It also means what it says.Period. If you want to change what it says, you DON'T reinterpret it, you AMMEND it.The Bible is a document that cannot be ammended. It just is. Jesus scorns anyone who tries to re-interpret what God wants in their own way:Mat 15:4 For instance, God says, `Honor your father and mother,' and `Anyone who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death.' Mat 15:5 But you say, `You don't need to honor your parents by caring for their needs if you give the money to God instead.' Mat 15:6 And so, by your own tradition, you nullify the direct commandment of God. Mat 15:7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was prophesying about you when he said, Mat 15:8 `These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away. Mat 15:9 Their worship is a farce, for they replace God's commands with their own man-made teachings.' " The Bible was made the way it was and was not meant to be changed. Jesus even EXPLAINS why it is people delude themselves with interpretations rather than facts here:Mat 13:10 His disciples came and asked him, "Why do you always tell stories when you talk to the people?" Mat 13:11 Then he explained to them, "You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not. Mat 13:12 To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them. Mat 13:13 That is why I tell these stories, because people see what I do, but they don't really see. They hear what I say, but they don't really hear, and they don't understand. Mat 13:14 This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, which says: `You will hear my words, but you will not understand; you will see what I do, but you will not perceive its meaning. Mat 13:15 For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes- so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.'* Mat 13:16 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. Mat 13:17 I assure you, many prophets and godly people have longed to see and hear what you have seen and heard, but they could not. There are many other places where prophets, disciples, and other Biblical characters warn against interpreting parts of the Bible or all of it. This is the one that comes to mind the most (I could add others, but do not want to enter a more extensive religious debate):Rev 22:18 And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book. Rev 22:19 And if anyone removes any of the words of this prophetic book, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 >How many of you folks remember things from your early childhoods, or >from when you were babies?>Tom I do, I do! So does my HFA son (almost age 9). I greatly enjoyed this discussion the last time around. I, too, remember wallpaper and things around my crib, and certainly things when I was 2 and 3. Amy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 >Lida: "As a translator I am aware of the fact that translations always are interpretations as well."I don't intend to argue about this, or be disagreeable in any manner, but as I remember was not a writer. Wasn't the book of written in Greek, by Greeks, an interpretation, as were 's words an interpretation of Jesus' words. So what we read in English is already the thrice interpreted words of the son of God. Didn't both Jesus and speak Aramaic?  Rainbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 -- In , " Rainbow . " <rainbow@v...> wrote: So what we read in English is already the thrice interpreted words of the son of God. Didn't both Jesus and speak Aramaic? Rainbow Even if it is thrice interpreted, many of Jesus's words (although not necessarily all the passages cited in my post) are sometimes repreated as many as three times, once each in , Mark, and Luke almost word for word, and so the meaning is repeated and reiterated three times. For instance, here in we see... Mat 13:11 Then he explained to them, " You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others have not. Mat 13:12 To those who are open to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But to those who are not listening, even what they have will be taken away from them. In Mark we see... Mar 4:11 He replied, " You are permitted to understand the secret about the Kingdom of God. But I am using these stories to conceal everything about it from outsiders, Mar 4:12 so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled: `They see what I do, but they don't perceive its meaning. They hear my words, but they don't understand. So they will not turn from their sins and be forgiven.'* And in Luke... Luk 8:10 He replied, " You have been permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of God. But I am using these stories to conceal everything about it from outsiders, so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled: `They see what I do, but they don't really see; they hear what I say, but they don't understand.' And so three times Jesus says the same thing. Though they have been observed and written by three separate authors, the statements have been witnessed and ascribed three times. The meaning of these statements can scarcely be argued to mean anything else than what was written. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2005 Report Share Posted November 7, 2005 What's it like not to remember being 5? That's what I want to know. Life is already fully formed at that age, and it's important to remember how you were treated at school, so you can analyse it in later life. I was 5 in all the power cuts crisis, 1973-4, when the energy unions were bringing down the Heath government. Want to remember that, just cos it was unusual. and at 2 I can remember recognising streets and watching motorway building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:37:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, ururu@... writes: Tom, As a translator I am aware of the fact that translations always are interpretations as well. No one can ever claim to know what a writer wanted to say with his words, apart from the writer himself. It already happens in a forum like this: how many times did persons misunderstand what someone else has written, although both even were brought up in the same country and speak the same language? It probably took you a lot of work to put all the examples of bible texts, I suppose. That was nice of you. Personally I have nothing special with the bible or with any other religion. Lida Lida, One person did not translate the Bible though. It was groups of people working over a very long time with each word and phrase discussed ad nauseum until the best translation was achieved... http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl? 1518 & cuTopic_topicID=39 & cuItem_itemID=5244 Question... We believe that the the books of the Bible were inspired by God and inerrant in their original form. Is it possible for them to have been changed and tainted through the course of translation, re-copying, and so forth? After all, we have none of the original manuscripts. Also, stated in an earlier response, it was said: " The main reason for new translations is changes of the receptor language. We needed a new English translation, not because the King was bad, but because English had changed " While this is partially true, it is not wholly true. The NIV bible was created in an effort to combat the RSV. Bible translators do not simply objectively translate the the Bible. Due to the numerous discrepencies in manuscripts, there are many times when a judgement call must be made. For example, Isaiah 7:14, refering to " young woman " or " virgin " . As WELS members, we tend to use the NIV. Is it discouraged to use another version, say the NRSV or CEV? Thank you for considering my questions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A: Your question really involves two matters that should be considered separately. There is the issue of the textual evidence for the books of the Bible, and there is the issue of reliable translation. I will briefly answer both questions and then direct you to places where you can find more information. As to the text of the Bible, here are the facts: we have more evidence for the text of the Bible than we do for any other text from the ancient world. No scholar I know of doubts that we have, for instance, the text of some of Euripides' plays from the 5th century BC. Yet for many of his plays, there is only one manuscript witness! So far as the Holy Scriptures are concerned, we have many, many witnesses, plus ancient translations. All of these confirm the truth that we have the books of the Bible in substantially the same form as they were written. Where those witnesses differ, in the vast majority of cases the differences involve no more than minor issues, similar to the difference in spelling we notice between the American " color " and the British " colour. " In those few cases where the difference is significant, the correct reading is relatively easy to determine from the evidence before us. In those very few cases where we we are uncertain about the text, none involve a doctrine that is not amply discussed in other parts of the Bible where we are certain about the text. As to the matter of differing translations, the fact is there is no one who translates the Bible without presuppositions or a certain bias. In a certain sense, then, there is no such thing as an " objective translation of the Bible. " Luther, for example, firmly believed that no one could translate the Scriptures without the spiritual perspective given by the " mind of Christ " (1 Co 2:16). I would agree with him. And yes, this perspective, as well as others that differ from the mind of Christ, will affect how the translator translates, for good or ill. The case you mention (Isaiah 7:14) is an example of this. There really is no textual problem there, by the way. Everyone is agreed about what the text reads. Translators differ as to what the text means. Some translate the word in question " young woman, " because they they have presuppositions about Scripture that differ from mine, and indeed, differ from what I would consider to be the pure perspective of the mind of Christ. They do not allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. At the same time, people can easily come to know their Savior through reading the RSV. I may not agree with every translation decision they made, and in some places I may feel that they have obscured the glory of Christ because of what I consider to be faulty presuppositions. Nevertheless, I would still consider it to be a good translation from which people can get a good understanding of their Savior and of his love for them. A key question when considering what version to use is to ask " For what? " If, in my personal study, I mainly use the NIV, I may well want to use the NRSV and the CEV side by side with it to see how the different translations handle individual passages. Often just the comparison of one version to another leads me to delve more deeply into the truth of God's word. In public worship or in catechism class, different criteria come into play. Do the translators share with me a high view of Scripture? Do they have a desire to be faithful to every word of the text? Do they share with me the perspective that Christ is the central truth of the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments? To the degree that they do, I will likely find the translation more reliable than others that don't reflect those presuppositions. In those public and teaching settings, then, I will likely prefer one translation to another. I woud suggest that that is why we " tend to use the NIV " in our churches. It is not a flawless translation by any means, but it is a good one, and more reliable (according to the standards I mentioned above) than others. The WELS has never offcially " discouraged " anyone from using a translation he or she finds helpful. Nor have we adopted the NIV as our official " public " translation. Finally, I would question the statement that the " NIV was created in an effort to combat the RSV. " I see no evidence in NIV's preface to suggest that this was the case. For more on this subject, I would like to direct you to the following resources, all found on the internet: http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl? 1518 & cuItem_itemID=895 & cuTopic_topicID=39 A web question discussing inerrancy. http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl? 1518 & cuItem_itemID=1436 & cuTopic_topicID=40 A web question discussing the text of the New Testament. http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/B/BalgeBible/BalgeBible ..rtf Balge's article on the Bible and how it came down to us. Beginning on page 12, he discusses textual criticism. http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/B/BeckAlmah/BeckAlmah.h tm Beck's article on the meaning of the word " Almah " in Isaiah 7:14 A series of three of Kuske's recent articles in " Forward in Christ " dealing with the whole topic of how translators translate and why we would chose one translation over another. http://www.wels.net/nlarch/search.pl? & id=4226 Choosing a good Bible translation http://www.wels.net/nlarch/search.pl? & id=4255 A suitable translation exploring new translations http://www.wels.net/nlarch/search.pl? & id=4282 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 In a message dated 11/8/2005 9:24:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, mikecarrie01@... writes: I never heard this before. The thing is, though, the context of Is. 14:12 doesn't seem to fit that of a firefly, but does fit Satan or at least a rebellious son of God. In my translation 'shining one' is used, instead of 'Lucifer' and says "How you have fallen from heaven, you shining one, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, you who were disabling the nations!" That doesn't sound like a firefly! Also, verses 13 & 14 say: "As for you, you have said in your heart, "To the heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting, in the remotest parts of the north. I shall go up above the high places of the clouds; I shall make myself resemble the Most High." This certainly fits Satan, who wanted to be like God and have the worship of humans for himself. I was taught that Lucifer was second only to God. The problem that arose was that God created the Angels first as pure, spiritual beings. Later, when God created Man, God placed them above the Angels* and some of the Angels resented their position in God's esteem being usurped by Mortals. Lucifer was chief among these. He and a third of all the Angels opposed God's will and were so cast out of Heaven to become devils and demons. We have trouble with them because they resent our position in God's eye AND they hate us for getting them cast out of Heaven, even though it was their own actions that caused it. * This is somewhat hard to explain. Obivously humans are not more powerful than Angels, but God commanded the Angels to bow to Adam and to serve Mankind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 In a message dated 11/8/2005 1:16:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, mikecarrie01@... writes: It's thought that possibly the angel that became Satan (which means rresister [of God]), was given a high position by God, possibly over the garden of Eden, and that getting egotistical because of his position and beauty and talents, he turned, his first act in his rebellious course being the trying to turn Adam and Eve away from God and to worshipping him (it didn't have to be directly but by their actions). In this passage which starts out as God talking to the king of Tyre but branching off into this at Ezekiel 28:13-15 before going back to the king of Tyre in vs. 16: "In Eden, the garden of God, you proved to be. Every precious stone was your covering; ruby, topaz and jasper; chrysolite, onyx and jade; sapphire, turquoise and emerald; and of gold was the workmanship of your settings and your sockets in you. In the day of your being created you were made ready. You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. On the holy mountain of God you have proved to be. In the midst of fiery stones you walked about. You were faultless in your ways from the day of your being created until unrighteousness was found in you." The fall would have taken place before the Temptation of Adam and Eve. Looking at it this way, it would make sense that Satan would want to tempt Adam and Eve to defy God, thus hurting them in His eyes and bringing His punishment down on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 " One person did not translate the Bible though. It was groups of > people working over a very long time with each word and phrase > discussed ad nauseum until the best translation was achieved... " Yes, they took this responsibility very seriously. " As to the text of the Bible, here are the facts: we have more > evidence for the text of the Bible than we do for any other text from > the ancient world. No scholar I know of doubts that we have, for > instance, the text of some of Euripides' plays from the 5th century > BC. Yet for many of his plays, there is only one manuscript witness! > So far as the Holy Scriptures are concerned, we have many, many > witnesses, plus ancient translations. All of these confirm the truth > that we have the books of the Bible in substantially the same form as > they were written. " I like this illustration with Euripedes! There are manuscripts going back to early A.D. The Dead Sea scrolls are a good example, which go back to the 2nd century AD, around the time when the apostles were still alive and so their reliability can be trusted. When they compared these to current translation there were only a few grammatical and spelling mistakes. There are also many archaeological proofs. (Here's an interesting story of my own: An Iranian friend of mine told me that the Iranian government found thousands of bones at the bottom of the Red Sea but didn't announce what they found, rather, covered it up. His father was a high official in the government before the Khomeini took power.) Also, there's harmony between each bible book so that while each has the writer's 'voice' and personality, they show themselves to be inspired by one 'author' and as parts of a whole book. As well, bible writers were candidly honest about their failings and wrote them down which was unusual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 No problem. For you to see it the way I do, you would have needed to read many different versions of the Bible many different times. It can only make totally coherent sense when taken as a whole, not in bite sized chunks. Tom Sorry Tom, but your question starts with the assumptions that the bible was inspired by god. That assumption is already too much for me to believe, sorry. I ain't no believer, that might be clear : ) You can hyperfocus very good at all these things, but it is not very much my subject. I appreciate that you take so much time to write all this, but I can't seem to have any interest in this particular subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 It starts out by talking about the king of Babylon but the bible often uses double applications or couches a passage which is meant to be understood as separate from the reast of the verses. Why are they want to dispute the existence of a lucifer? Who do they say he is supposed to be? > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:37:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > > > ururu@x writes: > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > > > As a translator I am aware of the fact that translations always > > are > > > > interpretations as well. No one can ever claim to know what a > > > writer > > > > wanted to say with his words, apart from the writer himself. It > > > > already happens in a forum like this: how many times did > persons > > > > misunderstand what someone else has written, although both even > > > were > > > > brought up in the same country and speak the same language? > > > > > > > > It probably took you a lot of work to put all the examples of > > bible > > > > texts, I suppose. That was nice of you. Personally I have > nothing > > > > special with the bible or with any other religion. > > > > > > > > Lida > > > > > > > > Lida, > > > > > > > > One person did not translate the Bible though. It was groups > of > > > > people working over a very long time with each word and phrase > > > > discussed ad nauseum until the best translation was achieved... > > > > > > > > http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl? > > > > 1518 & cuTopic_topicID=39 & cuItem_itemID=5244 > > > > > > > > Question... > > > > > > > > We believe that the the books of the Bible were inspired by God > > and > > > > inerrant in their original form. Is it possible for them to > have > > > been > > > > changed and tainted through the course of translation, re- > > copying, > > > > and so forth? After all, we have none of the original > > manuscripts. > > > > Also, stated in an earlier response, it was said: > > > > > > > > " The main reason for new translations is changes of the > receptor > > > > language. We needed a new English translation, not because the > > King > > > > was bad, but because English had changed " > > > > > > > > While this is partially true, it is not wholly true. The NIV > > bible > > > > was created in an effort to combat the RSV. Bible translators > do > > > not > > > > simply objectively translate the the Bible. Due to the numerous > > > > discrepencies in manuscripts, there are many times when a > > judgement > > > > call must be made. For example, Isaiah 7:14, refering to " young > > > > woman " or " virgin " . As WELS members, we tend to use the NIV. Is > > it > > > > discouraged to use another version, say the NRSV or CEV? > > > > > > > > Thank you for considering my questions > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- -- > -- > > -- > > > -- > > > > > > > > A: Your question really involves two matters that should be > > > > considered separately. There is the issue of the textual > evidence > > > for > > > > the books of the Bible, and there is the issue of reliable > > > > translation. I will briefly answer both questions and then > direct > > > you > > > > to places where you can find more information. > > > > > > > > As to the text of the Bible, here are the facts: we have more > > > > evidence for the text of the Bible than we do for any other > text > > > from > > > > the ancient world. No scholar I know of doubts that we have, > for > > > > instance, the text of some of Euripides' plays from the 5th > > century > > > > BC. Yet for many of his plays, there is only one manuscript > > > witness! > > > > So far as the Holy Scriptures are concerned, we have many, many > > > > witnesses, plus ancient translations. All of these confirm the > > > truth > > > > that we have the books of the Bible in substantially the same > > form > > > as > > > > they were written. > > > > > > > > Where those witnesses differ, in the vast majority of cases the > > > > differences involve no more than minor issues, similar to the > > > > difference in spelling we notice between the American " color " > and > > > the > > > > British " colour. " In those few cases where the difference is > > > > significant, the correct reading is relatively easy to > determine > > > from > > > > the evidence before us. In those very few cases where we we are > > > > uncertain about the text, none involve a doctrine that is not > > amply > > > > discussed in other parts of the Bible where we are certain > about > > > the > > > > text. > > > > > > > > As to the matter of differing translations, the fact is there > is > > no > > > > one who translates the Bible without presuppositions or a > certain > > > > bias. In a certain sense, then, there is no such thing as > > > > an " objective translation of the Bible. " Luther, for example, > > > firmly > > > > believed that no one could translate the Scriptures without the > > > > spiritual perspective given by the " mind of Christ " (1 Co > 2:16). > > I > > > > would agree with him. And yes, this perspective, as well as > > others > > > > that differ from the mind of Christ, will affect how the > > translator > > > > translates, for good or ill. > > > > > > > > The case you mention (Isaiah 7:14) is an example of this. There > > > > really is no textual problem there, by the way. Everyone is > > agreed > > > > about what the text reads. Translators differ as to what the > text > > > > means. Some translate the word in question " young woman, " > because > > > > they they have presuppositions about Scripture that differ from > > > mine, > > > > and indeed, differ from what I would consider to be the pure > > > > perspective of the mind of Christ. They do not allow Scripture > to > > > > interpret Scripture. > > > > > > > > At the same time, people can easily come to know their Savior > > > through > > > > reading the RSV. I may not agree with every translation > decision > > > they > > > > made, and in some places I may feel that they have obscured the > > > glory > > > > of Christ because of what I consider to be faulty > > presuppositions. > > > > Nevertheless, I would still consider it to be a good > translation > > > from > > > > which people can get a good understanding of their Savior and > of > > > his > > > > love for them. > > > > > > > > A key question when considering what version to use is to > > ask " For > > > > what? " If, in my personal study, I mainly use the NIV, I may > well > > > > want to use the NRSV and the CEV side by side with it to see > how > > > the > > > > different translations handle individual passages. Often just > the > > > > comparison of one version to another leads me to delve more > > deeply > > > > into the truth of God's word. > > > > > > > > In public worship or in catechism class, different criteria > come > > > into > > > > play. Do the translators share with me a high view of > Scripture? > > Do > > > > they have a desire to be faithful to every word of the text? Do > > > they > > > > share with me the perspective that Christ is the central truth > of > > > the > > > > Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments? To the degree that > > they > > > > do, I will likely find the translation more reliable than > others > > > that > > > > don't reflect those presuppositions. In those public and > teaching > > > > settings, then, I will likely prefer one translation to > another. > > > > > > > > I woud suggest that that is why we " tend to use the NIV " in our > > > > churches. It is not a flawless translation by any means, but it > > is > > > a > > > > good one, and more reliable (according to the standards I > > mentioned > > > > above) than others. > > > > > > > > The WELS has never offcially " discouraged " anyone from using a > > > > translation he or she finds helpful. Nor have we adopted the > NIV > > as > > > > our official " public " translation. > > > > > > > > Finally, I would question the statement that the " NIV was > created > > > in > > > > an effort to combat the RSV. " I see no evidence in NIV's > preface > > to > > > > suggest that this was the case. > > > > > > > > For more on this subject, I would like to direct you to the > > > following > > > > resources, all found on the internet: > > > > > > > > http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl? > > > > 1518 & cuItem_itemID=895 & cuTopic_topicID=39 > > > > A web question discussing inerrancy. > > > > > > > > http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl? > > > > 1518 & cuItem_itemID=1436 & cuTopic_topicID=40 > > > > A web question discussing the text of the New Testament. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/B/BalgeBible/BalgeBible > > > > .rtf > > > > Balge's article on the Bible and how it came down to us. > > Beginning > > > on > > > > page 12, he discusses textual criticism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/B/BeckAlmah/BeckAlmah.h > > > > tm > > > > Beck's article on the meaning of the word " Almah " in Isaiah 7:14 > > > > > > > > A series of three of Kuske's recent articles in " Forward > in > > > > Christ " dealing with the whole topic of how translators > translate > > > and > > > > why we would chose one translation over another. > > > > > > > > http://www.wels.net/nlarch/search.pl? & id=4226 > > > > Choosing a good Bible translation > > > > > > > > http://www.wels.net/nlarch/search.pl? & id=4255 > > > > A suitable translation > > > > > > > > exploring new translations > > > > http://www.wels.net/nlarch/search.pl? & id=4282 > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 You'd have to check out the website I posted - it is not denying Satan's exsistence, just Lucifers - I have read some of this website and wasn't sure what to make of it to be honest. > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:37:27 PM Eastern Standard > Time, > > > > > ururu@x writes: > > > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > > > > > As a translator I am aware of the fact that translations > always > > > are > > > > > interpretations as well. No one can ever claim to know what a > > > > writer > > > > > wanted to say with his words, apart from the writer himself. > It > > > > > already happens in a forum like this: how many times did > > persons > > > > > misunderstand what someone else has written, although both > even > > > > were > > > > > brought up in the same country and speak the same language? > > > > > > > > > > It probably took you a lot of work to put all the examples of > > > bible > > > > > texts, I suppose. That was nice of you. Personally I have > > nothing > > > > > special with the bible or with any other religion. > > > > > > > > > > Lida > > > > > > > > > > Lida, > > > > > > > > > > One person did not translate the Bible though. It was groups > > of > > > > > people working over a very long time with each word and > phrase > > > > > discussed ad nauseum until the best translation was > achieved... > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl? > > > > > 1518 & cuTopic_topicID=39 & cuItem_itemID=5244 > > > > > > > > > > Question... > > > > > > > > > > We believe that the the books of the Bible were inspired by > God > > > and > > > > > inerrant in their original form. Is it possible for them to > > have > > > > been > > > > > changed and tainted through the course of translation, re- > > > copying, > > > > > and so forth? After all, we have none of the original > > > manuscripts. > > > > > Also, stated in an earlier response, it was said: > > > > > > > > > > " The main reason for new translations is changes of the > > receptor > > > > > language. We needed a new English translation, not because > the > > > King > > > > > was bad, but because English had changed " > > > > > > > > > > While this is partially true, it is not wholly true. The NIV > > > bible > > > > > was created in an effort to combat the RSV. Bible translators > > do > > > > not > > > > > simply objectively translate the the Bible. Due to the > numerous > > > > > discrepencies in manuscripts, there are many times when a > > > judgement > > > > > call must be made. For example, Isaiah 7:14, refering > to " young > > > > > woman " or " virgin " . As WELS members, we tend to use the NIV. > Is > > > it > > > > > discouraged to use another version, say the NRSV or CEV? > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for considering my questions > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ -- > -- > > -- > > > -- > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > A: Your question really involves two matters that should be > > > > > considered separately. There is the issue of the textual > > evidence > > > > for > > > > > the books of the Bible, and there is the issue of reliable > > > > > translation. I will briefly answer both questions and then > > direct > > > > you > > > > > to places where you can find more information. > > > > > > > > > > As to the text of the Bible, here are the facts: we have more > > > > > evidence for the text of the Bible than we do for any other > > text > > > > from > > > > > the ancient world. No scholar I know of doubts that we have, > > for > > > > > instance, the text of some of Euripides' plays from the 5th > > > century > > > > > BC. Yet for many of his plays, there is only one manuscript > > > > witness! > > > > > So far as the Holy Scriptures are concerned, we have many, > many > > > > > witnesses, plus ancient translations. All of these confirm > the > > > > truth > > > > > that we have the books of the Bible in substantially the same > > > form > > > > as > > > > > they were written. > > > > > > > > > > Where those witnesses differ, in the vast majority of cases > the > > > > > differences involve no more than minor issues, similar to the > > > > > difference in spelling we notice between the American " color " > > and > > > > the > > > > > British " colour. " In those few cases where the difference is > > > > > significant, the correct reading is relatively easy to > > determine > > > > from > > > > > the evidence before us. In those very few cases where we we > are > > > > > uncertain about the text, none involve a doctrine that is not > > > amply > > > > > discussed in other parts of the Bible where we are certain > > about > > > > the > > > > > text. > > > > > > > > > > As to the matter of differing translations, the fact is there > > is > > > no > > > > > one who translates the Bible without presuppositions or a > > certain > > > > > bias. In a certain sense, then, there is no such thing as > > > > > an " objective translation of the Bible. " Luther, for example, > > > > firmly > > > > > believed that no one could translate the Scriptures without > the > > > > > spiritual perspective given by the " mind of Christ " (1 Co > > 2:16). > > > I > > > > > would agree with him. And yes, this perspective, as well as > > > others > > > > > that differ from the mind of Christ, will affect how the > > > translator > > > > > translates, for good or ill. > > > > > > > > > > The case you mention (Isaiah 7:14) is an example of this. > There > > > > > really is no textual problem there, by the way. Everyone is > > > agreed > > > > > about what the text reads. Translators differ as to what the > > text > > > > > means. Some translate the word in question " young woman, " > > because > > > > > they they have presuppositions about Scripture that differ > from > > > > mine, > > > > > and indeed, differ from what I would consider to be the pure > > > > > perspective of the mind of Christ. They do not allow > Scripture > > to > > > > > interpret Scripture. > > > > > > > > > > At the same time, people can easily come to know their Savior > > > > through > > > > > reading the RSV. I may not agree with every translation > > decision > > > > they > > > > > made, and in some places I may feel that they have obscured > the > > > > glory > > > > > of Christ because of what I consider to be faulty > > > presuppositions. > > > > > Nevertheless, I would still consider it to be a good > > translation > > > > from > > > > > which people can get a good understanding of their Savior and > > of > > > > his > > > > > love for them. > > > > > > > > > > A key question when considering what version to use is to > > > ask " For > > > > > what? " If, in my personal study, I mainly use the NIV, I may > > well > > > > > want to use the NRSV and the CEV side by side with it to see > > how > > > > the > > > > > different translations handle individual passages. Often just > > the > > > > > comparison of one version to another leads me to delve more > > > deeply > > > > > into the truth of God's word. > > > > > > > > > > In public worship or in catechism class, different criteria > > come > > > > into > > > > > play. Do the translators share with me a high view of > > Scripture? > > > Do > > > > > they have a desire to be faithful to every word of the text? > Do > > > > they > > > > > share with me the perspective that Christ is the central > truth > > of > > > > the > > > > > Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments? To the degree that > > > they > > > > > do, I will likely find the translation more reliable than > > others > > > > that > > > > > don't reflect those presuppositions. In those public and > > teaching > > > > > settings, then, I will likely prefer one translation to > > another. > > > > > > > > > > I woud suggest that that is why we " tend to use the NIV " in > our > > > > > churches. It is not a flawless translation by any means, but > it > > > is > > > > a > > > > > good one, and more reliable (according to the standards I > > > mentioned > > > > > above) than others. > > > > > > > > > > The WELS has never offcially " discouraged " anyone from using > a > > > > > translation he or she finds helpful. Nor have we adopted the > > NIV > > > as > > > > > our official " public " translation. > > > > > > > > > > Finally, I would question the statement that the " NIV was > > created > > > > in > > > > > an effort to combat the RSV. " I see no evidence in NIV's > > preface > > > to > > > > > suggest that this was the case. > > > > > > > > > > For more on this subject, I would like to direct you to the > > > > following > > > > > resources, all found on the internet: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl? > > > > > 1518 & cuItem_itemID=895 & cuTopic_topicID=39 > > > > > A web question discussing inerrancy. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl? > > > > > 1518 & cuItem_itemID=1436 & cuTopic_topicID=40 > > > > > A web question discussing the text of the New Testament. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/B/BalgeBible/BalgeBible > > > > > .rtf > > > > > Balge's article on the Bible and how it came down to us. > > > Beginning > > > > on > > > > > page 12, he discusses textual criticism. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/B/BeckAlmah/BeckAlmah.h > > > > > tm > > > > > Beck's article on the meaning of the word " Almah " in Isaiah > 7:14 > > > > > > > > > > A series of three of Kuske's recent articles > in " Forward > > in > > > > > Christ " dealing with the whole topic of how translators > > translate > > > > and > > > > > why we would chose one translation over another. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wels.net/nlarch/search.pl? & id=4226 > > > > > Choosing a good Bible translation > > > > > > > > > > http://www.wels.net/nlarch/search.pl? & id=4255 > > > > > A suitable translation > > > > > > > > > > exploring new translations > > > > > http://www.wels.net/nlarch/search.pl? & id=4282 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 It's weird. This subject was discussed at Aspergia too before and a surprising number said they could remember things from much farther back than is "supposed" to be possible. I have memories from when I was about one. Inger Re: Re: Stress symptoms? >How many of you folks remember things from your early childhoods, or >from when you were babies?>Tom I do, I do! So does my HFA son (almost age 9). I greatly enjoyed this discussion the last time around. I, too, remember wallpaper and things around my crib, and certainly things when I was 2 and 3. Amy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 : > Maybe Aspie children could be recruited as child spies, since many NTs > don't realize how well they can understand adult conversations! LOL!! (And shhhh, don't want the CIA to get any ideas...) ;-) Inger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.