Biblical Translation.

[I, Brian]

If bananabrain is referencing my own post as providing a somewhat pedantic argument, then I would quite agree. Arguing over numbers in translation does not equate to a critique of theology. However, it does illustrate how different Christian translations can approach the issues in different ways.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

However, it does illustrate how different Christian translations can approach the issues in different ways.

Or how the Spirit can assume many different forms without losing its identity.

Another note - from the Second Century on the writings of the Fathers etc. make great use of scriptural reference. If one was to 'edit' scripture to the degree that conspiracy thinkers would have us believe, one would be obliged to edit not only all these references but all the conclusions and commentaries thereof - we are now into conspiracy on a gargantuan scale - made more difficult in that in many cases documents only come to light centuries after they were written.

Thomas

[aged hippy]

Dear All,

Thank you kindly for all your responses.

By cross-referencing Genesis, parts of the Koran, and some of the Texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, i have found the answers that i sought.


I am sorry to have stirred up contention.
Once again thank you all, i am most grateful.


Warmest Regards,

malcolm

[mikie8]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Or how the Spirit can assume many different forms without losing its identity.

Another note - from the Second Century on the writings of the Fathers etc. make great use of scriptural reference. If one was to 'edit' scripture to the degree that conspiracy thinkers would have us believe, one would be obliged to edit not only all these references but all the conclusions and commentaries thereof - we are now into conspiracy on a gargantuan scale - made more difficult in that in many cases documents only come to light centuries after they were written.

Thomas

you dont have to be a "conspiracy thinker" just to notice that there are many versions of the bible you just need to look in a book store .unless book stores are owned by "conspiracy thinkers".
"conspiracy on a gargantuan scale" are you refering to the christian church if so i would like you to clarify which one .
i think the word conspiracy is used far too much in regards to religion .

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by mikie8

i think the word conspiracy is used far too much in regards to religion .

I heartily agree - I was using the word light-heartedly.

Many argue that because there are different translations of scripture then true and original meaning is lost. A favourite variation is that the 'church' rewrote scripture to suit its own ends.

However, throughout history saints and sages have managed to distill great spiritual insight from scripture, which would suggest that the translation argument is not quite as sound as some insist. Furthermore critics of scripture usually posess only a superficial reading of the text, and are themselves devoid of any spiritual insight.

Add to this the fact that masters of other traditions regard the Bible as a sacred text (with all that the term implies) then there is an appreciable gulf between those who decry it, and those who acknowledge it.

The question then resolves itself to not what is missing from scripture, but what is missing from those who insist it has no spiritual value or meaning.

Thomas

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by aged hippy

Dear All,

Thank you kindly for all your responses.

By cross-referencing Genesis, parts of the Koran, and some of the Texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, i have found the answers that i sought.


I am sorry to have stirred up contention.
Once again thank you all, i am most grateful.


Warmest Regards,

malcolm

You've done nothing wrong in the slightest - feel free to bring up any spcifics you would be happy to explore further through discussion.

[bananabrain]

are you saying the text is no good unless someone tells you what it really means and it has no relevance?

no, i'm saying that if you don't understand the text then it is unlikely to appear relevant. the text may make perfect sense in a language you don't speak, or make perfect sense on a level you don't appreciate. in the case of Torah, both are true and at least 70 levels are available. either way, it is not the Text that is lacking.

Arguing over numbers in translation does not equate to a critique of theology.

quite. these issues are resolved by the commentators. one famous contradiction is between the number of years that the jewish people were enslaved in egypt, which is stated twice and different figures given. the contradiction was resolved by the commentator who noted that one figure counts the years from the revelation of abraham and the other counts from the birth of isaac. the commentator then identifies the textual clue that alludes to this.

>Or how the Spirit can assume many different forms without losing its identity.

as the kabbalists say, the purpose of this is to "appease the ear" - our explanations bear as much relation to reality as a picture of someone does to the actual person.

If one was to 'edit' scripture to thedegree that conspiracy thinkers would have us believe, one would be obliged to edit not only all these references but all the conclusions and commentaries thereof

and, besides, as it is said, from our PoV, "these and those are the words of the Living G!D" - in other words, the perceptual problem is ours, not G!D's.

Furthermore critics of scripture usually possess only a superficial reading of the text, and are themselves devoid of any spiritual insight.

this is just as unfair as saying that the sages of a particular tradition are devoid of rational or scientific insight - and just as inaccurate. respect should prevail- and that means in all directions.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

this is just as unfair as saying that the sages of a particular tradition are devoid of rational or scientific insight - and just as inaccurate. respect should prevail- and that means in all directions.

I don't think so - in the context of what I said, I meant one is not obliged to respect the voice of ignorance - and I am not accusing anyone on this board of such!

Thomas

[mikie8]

@ bannanabrain

so your saying that if you read the torah and find it relevent your've understood it ?
I have raed a torah but didnt find it relevant so are you saying that i didnt ubderstand the text , i suppose you are . Sounds the same thing my islamic friend said about jews and christians . Its an old excuse used in religion "if we dont beleive in the scriptures were not worthy" or "if you understand the scriptures you are chosen in some way"

The fact is the torah is a form was about in jesus's time but the OT of the bible is not the torah why ? , because of translation and if you compare the two they are very different and if the OT can change so much in time does it not suggest the NT has changed as much also .

[bananabrain]

so your saying that if you read the torah and find it relevent your've understood it ?

by no means. i'm saying that i've understood a *part* of it. i'm not sure that it's possible for a human to understand all of it from every possible perspective.

I have raed a torah but didnt find it relevant so are you saying that i didnt ubderstand the text , i suppose you are . Sounds the same thing my islamic friend said about jews and christians . Its an old excuse used in religion "if we dont beleive in the scriptures were not worthy" or "if you understand the scriptures you are chosen in some way"

so then, by your logic, understanding is not dependent upon such things as language (or, dare i say, syntax, grammar and spelling) - that sacred texts should be "understandable" or "relevant". i consider this the theological equivalent of demanding that everything artistic should be censored in case it upsets a child. the Torah and NaKh (the rest of the "OT") were given to the jewish people and it is relevant to *us*. if you don't find it relevant to you it is hardly up to us to make it so! furthermore, 'chosenness' is not a function of understanding, nor is 'worthiness'. both are included in the supervening function of the 'covenant'.

The fact is the torah is a form was about in jesus's time but the OT of the bible is not the torah why ? , because of translation and if you compare the two they are very different and if the OT can change so much in time does it not suggest the NT has changed as much also .

OK, first of all, i have no particular opinion on the NT, because it's not a sacred text for me. secondly, the Torah (at least in its original hebrew text) remains the Torah to this day, regardless of what has happened with its various translations and if you want to know my opinions on the documentary hypothesis, i have explained them elsewhere. other than this, i'm not exactly sure what point it is you're trying to make.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Or how the Spirit can assume many different forms without losing its identity.

Another note - from the Second Century on the writings of the Fathers etc. make great use of scriptural reference. If one was to 'edit' scripture to the degree that conspiracy thinkers would have us believe, one would be obliged to edit not only all these references but all the conclusions and commentaries thereof - we are now into conspiracy on a gargantuan scale - made more difficult in that in many cases documents only come to light centuries after they were written.

Thomas

Namaste Thomas,

generally speaking, i agree with you.

the problem herein is not that the text is less capable of spiritual transformations or the message is diluted, rather, the problem is with those that insist on taking the Bible literally.

it's my opinion that those folks are mistaken and, moreover, i feel that is easily demonstrated by the textual critiques that many scholars have done.