Biblical Translation

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

On another thread Hope said this:

"Your definition is pretty good - its very similar to the Oxford Dictionary definition - "Sovereignty or control".  However, the word that is used in the Bible and translated 'dominion' in English, is more generally used in Jewish literature to refer to caring for and protection."

This seems a bit bizarre to me:

There seems to be the following options:-

1) It is simply a bad translation. In which case what does it mean for the rest of the Bible.

2) They meant that the true Jewish interpretation was closer to the 21st century interpretation of control and sovereignty.

3)The meaning was ambiguous and Hope is applying his preferred 21st century interpretation.


you would have thought that a God of the Omni's would be able to get his message though unambiguously but apparently not.

[Rhiannon]

Well yes, it's faith based on something not a good deal more reliable than the messages in a game of Chinese Whispers.

[jeremyp]

It's a standard MO of Christians trying to defend what is in the Bible. A Christian will create definitions for words to suit their purpose without regard for the English language.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

It's a standard MO of Christians trying to defend what is in the Bible. A Christian will create definitions for words to suit their purpose without regard for the English language.

Look's that way to me but interested to see what believers say.

[Owlswing]

Look's that way to me but interested to see what believers say.

Look back over the interminable debate over what "temptation" means in the Lord's Prayer! Whatever you might THINK it means certainly ain't what Hope and OMW tell us!

Mainly this is because they and the other believers were asked to explain why those praying should have to ask their god not to lead them into temptation or why he might do so!

[Hope]

you would have thought that a God of the Omni's would be able to get his message though unambiguously but apparently not.

As far as I'm aware, it is human socity that controls the development of language.  It is, partly, why legislation sometimes has to be updated in order to take such developments into account.  I suppose that if society decided to stop all language development, we could get away with using older translations.  At the same time, the transferring of concets across languages doesn't always work smoothly.  For instance, in the Nepalese Bible, there is no mention of the Lamb of God.  Why?  There are no sheep in Nepal.  Comparably, and away from the Bible, there are half a dozen words for snow in the global forms of English; there are probably a dozen (not the famed 300/100/50) in Inuit languages.

[Nearly Sane]

As far as I'm aware, it is human socity that controls the development of language.  It is, partly, why legislation sometimes has to be updated in order to take such developments into account.  I suppose that if society decided to stop all language development, we could get away with using older translations.  At the same time, the transferring of concets across languages doesn't always work smoothly.  For instance, in the Nepalese Bible, there is no mention of the Lamb of God.  Why?  There are no sheep in Nepal.  Comparably, and away from the Bible, there are half a dozen words for snow in the global forms of English; there are probably a dozen (not the famed 300/100/50) in Inuit languages.

I suspect my understanding of 'control' is very different to your's here. Please explain how language is controlled?

[Hope]

It's a standard MO of Christians trying to defend what is in the Bible. A Christian will create definitions for words to suit their purpose without regard for the English language.

Thanks for that, jeremy.  Remember that the problem with the AV/KJV is that it was based on material that was often a translation of a translation of a translation.  Since then, documents that predate that material has been found that provide a better understanding of the languages that the Bible was originally written in, with the result that more recent translations are closer to the original meanings.  We are still not exactly the same simply because there are ideas and concepts that simply don't transfer to English (indicating that the English language is by no means perfect). 

Then there are words in these earliest documents that are used, even within the material, in more than one way.  For instance, in Luke 14, where some versions translate Jesus as saying 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, ... ' the Greek word Luke uses is μισεῖ.  This can either mean 'detest/hate' or 'love less' - and it is used in these two ways within the same material.  Was Jesus suggesting that people who became Christians shoud detest their families, or was it more along the lines of the famous passage from Genesis 2 - "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."  There is no suggestion that either partner should begin to detest their parents when they get married; just that the love they felt towards those parents before their marriage changes to something less intense.

That is why reading the Bible as a whole is so important, as opposed to the way that some here (on both sides of the debate) like to cherry-pick a verse, or perhaps even a phrase within a verse to try to make a point.

[Nearly Sane]

Because obviously a collection of books has a unified meaning. Something that can't even be demonstrated for a single word.

[Hope]

I suspect my understanding of 'control' is very different to your's here. Please explain how language is controlled?

OK, let's take the examples of 'weekend' and 'gay'.  Some 30 years ago, the French (Language) Academy tried to ban the use of the ever-more common phrase 'le weekend'.  IIRC, the ban seemed to work for a while, but then lost its influence.  On the other hand, English has allowed the change in meaning of 'gay' without much fuss.

Then, we've had the more recent developments whereby words such as 'wicked' and 'bad' (and others that have traditionally had negative connotations) have come to mean positive ideas.  Society decides how language develops and how meanings change.

[Nearly Sane]

Society isn't a thing making decisions.

[Shaker]

As far as I'm aware, it is human socity that controls the development of language.

This is no more and no less than a blatant evasion of Stephen's point, which is that - exactly as he said - a god of the traditional attributes would have no difficulty whatsoever in getting its message to mankind across clearly and without all the risks attendant upon translation and interpretation by fallible humans who work with limited knowledge, and/or make errors and/or have an agenda to push.

This point has come up so often before, only to be dodged each and every time by you, that I make no apology for quoting myself:

I'm suggesting that a god of the traditional omnimax attributes would not need to rely on getting its supposed message to humanity across by the inherently risky methods of multiple and regular translation, retranslation and interpretation not merely from language A to language B but within the same language, but would want, would know how and would be able to communicate clearly and unambiguously without these risky and imperfect tools and processes. Translation is a fine art and a constant trade-off between literal rendering and flavour; that's why the risk of misleading texts is significant and constant. A text needs to be interpreted only if it's ambiguous to start with, and that's patently inconsistent with a god of the usual attributes. I try to write as simply and as clearly as I can, but sometimes fail in full accuracy and clarity. That's because I'm a fallible human being of limited knowledge - I don't have unlimited capacities and capabilities as a god is deemed to have, and who would be entirely capable of transmitting a message with the maximum of clarity and the minimum of (in fact, zero) ambiguity.

Perhaps you don't believe in such a god. You seem reluctant to say, and I understand why. [March 2nd 2016]

and again:

I've asked this of some theists here (such as Hope) but have never received an answer.

Do you not think that the necessity of interpretation - which is by definition a subjective matter - and the existence of an omnimax god of the traditional attributes contradict each other? If we take the existence of said god as read for the sake of the argument, there would be no need for interpretation - if it has a message to get across to its creation it would (a) want to, (b) know how to and (c) be able to put it over with absolutely sparkling and unambiguous clarity to every living person, without any need for interpretation or translation from one language to another (or within the same language over historical time) with all the problems that that can give rise to. We know that purely human documents can be ambiguous, and only a text which is ambiguous to start off with requires interpretation. I submit that this is inconsistent with a god of the traditional attributes. [March 8th 2016]

You presumably think that the deity in which you believe is powerful enough to magic a universe into being out of nothing and to perform parlour tricks such as enabling a virgin to give birth and corpses to come back to life; but when it comes to being able to get across its message to its human creation in an absolutely crystal-clear, transparent way which doesn't allow for ambiguity or error or any other kind of unclarity, its supposed powers suddenly desert it and we're left with a hodge-podge of differing translations, frequently mutually contradictory, in a multiplicity of human languages, made by fallible, information-limited humans who may have an agenda to advance.

Why is that, exactly, in your view? I know full well what my explanation is, but I'm asking you for yours. [August 11th 2015]

[Hope]

Because obviously a collection of books has a unified meaning. Something that can't even be demonstrated for a single word.

OK, let's take Caesar's 'Commentarii de Bello Gallica'.  Although there are 8 volumes, the last of which relates Caesar's death and was probably written by a 'follower' of Caesar's (the current belief is that this was one of Caesar's senior officers), we can be pretty certain that terms and concepts that occur in the 1st volume mean the same thing in the 7th.  Or take some of the historical annals of various nations; they may have been written by different people and at different times, but very often the concepts referred to remain pretty constant.  Obviously, this isn't always the case - for instance, the concept of Messiah for the Jews seems to have changed dramatically from very much a spiritual entity in the older books of the Hebrew Scriptures and around the time that the Jewish nation began to be invaded and oppressed by neighbouring nations in about the 2nd century - such as the Seleucids.  From hereon in to Jesus' time, it became more of a military-political entity.

[Hope]

This is no more and no less than a blatant evasion of Stephen's point, which is that - exactly as he said - a god of the traditional attributes would have no difficulty whatsoever in getting its message to mankind across clearly and without all the risks attendant upon translation and interpretation by fallible humans who work with limited knowledge, and/or make errors and/or have an agenda to push.

This point has come up so often before, only to be dodged each and every time by you, that I make no apology for quoting myself:

and again:

The problem is, of course, is that people like yourself dodge the issue themselves by suggesting that God overrides what humans do.  He could do - after all, he could quite easily override any decision anyon makes to not believe in him and force everyone, even against their will, to live in his presence for the rest of time.  I realise that some atheists here seem to hope that that will happen, but I don't believe that God works like that.  He gives humans freedom of choice and then respects that choice.

[Shaker]

The problem is, of course, is that people like yourself dodge the issue themselves by suggesting that God overrides what humans do.  He could do - after all, he could quite easily override any decision anyon makes to not believe in him and force everyone, even against their will, to live in his presence for the rest of time.  I realise that some atheists here seem to hope that that will happen, but I don't believe that God works like that.  He gives humans freedom of choice and then respects that choice.

Fascinating to you when you typed it, no doubt; but how about actually answering the points raised for a change?

[Hope]

Look back over the interminable debate over what "temptation" means in the Lord's Prayer! Whatever you might THINK it means certainly ain't what Hope and OMW tell us!

Do you have evidence for this claim, Owl?  After all, the English language has changed dramatically over the last 100 years, and - despite a far sloer change in the previous 300 years - had still changed in that period.

Mainly this is because they and the other believers were asked to explain why those praying should have to ask their god not to lead them into temptation or why he might do so!

Perhaps you have forgotten that, at no point is the Bible, is temptation deemed to be a sin.  The sin is giving into that temptation.  All the Lord's Prayer does is ask that God help his followers from falling into that trap.

[Nearly Sane]

We really can't, you know be certain about what is meant. Leaving aside any possibility that Case are used secretaries who might add meaning, writing something one day or one instant by one person to have a consistent meaning would need them to know of the effects on them.of any activity that happens in between, which is obviously illogical.

Can you outline to me why you think the challenges of post modernism to meaning as you argue for it can be ignored? Can you explain how on the one case you argue that a notional entity such as society 'controks' language but at the same time posit contradictory position that the author controls it, and indeed the future? Leaving aside that fairly basic lack of understanding of the theory of meaning in language, can you outline how a reader could determine between the two models, which are contradictory, that you are proposing, can be used by a reader since that posits a third model, contradictory to the other two?

[Hope]

Fascinating to you when you typed it, no doubt; but how about actually answering the points raised for a change?

Clearly, since you have already made up your mind on this and other matters, you don't see (or perhaps choose not to see) the point.  That's your prerogative.  All I, and others, can do is answer your questions and leave you to decide whether to consider those answers or to stick with your own preconceived ideas.

[Shaker]

Clearly, since you have already made up your mind on this and other matters, you don't see (or perhaps choose not to see) the point.

The point is that you clearly won't, because probably can't, give a clear and straightforward answer to a clear and straightfoward question when it's put to you. What on earth is new about that? It's your SOP.   

All I, and others, can do is answer your questions and leave you to decide whether to consider those answers or to stick with your own preconceived ideas.

So given the monumental list of questions for which you've never provided or even tried to provide any answers, when do you plan to start doing this?

[Hope]

We really can't, you know be certain about what is meant. Leaving aside any possibility that Case are used secretaries who might add meaning, writing something one day or one instant by one person to have a consistent meaning would need them to know of the effects on them.of any activity that happens in between, which is obviously illogical.

Can you outline to me why you think the challenges of post modernism to meaning as you argue for it can be ignored? Can you explain how on the one case you argue that a notional entity such as society 'controks' language but at the same time posit contradictory position that the author controls it, and indeed the future? Leaving aside that fairly basic lack of understanding of the theory of meaning in language, can you outline how a reader could determine between the two models, which are contradictory, that you are proposing, can be used by a reader since that posits a third model, contradictory to the other two?

Well, since the English you use, especially in the second paragraph is somewhat ungrammatical, I could just guess at what you're trying to say, or ask you to reword your post so that it makes sense.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, since the English you use, especially in the second paragraph is somewhat ungrammatical, I could just guess at what you're trying to say, or ask you to reword your post so that it makes sense.

Other than the typos, it is perfectly grammatical. I was assuming you had a basic understanding of the theory of meaning, I take it that isn't correct. I'll come back and start at the very beginning for you sometime.

[Hope]

The point is that you clearly won't, because probably can't, give a clear and straightforward answer to a clear and straightfoward question when it's put to you.

But it is very rarely a clear and straightforward question.  Often questions are worded in such a way as to try to force people to answer them in a particular way, and when we choose not to answer in that desired way, the questioner feels that the question hasn't been answered. 

So given the monumental list of questions for which you've never provided or even tried to provide any answers, when do you plan to start doing this?

I started many months ago; you don't see the answers because I don't answer in the way that you think that your questioning style requires me to answer.  These attempts to make a person answer in the way you want them to is pretty standard debating technique, by the way.

[Shaker]

I started many months ago

Where?

Where is the answer/are the answers to the question: "What are the 'good reasons' [your phrase] as to why (I quote) 'homosexuality was viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures'?

Where is the answer to the question: "Where have I [Shaker] deployed the negative proof fallacy more than Hope, as asserted by the latter?"

[Hope]

Other than the typos, it is perfectly grammatical. I was assuming you had a basic understanding of the theory of meaning, I take it that isn't correct. I'll come back and start at the very beginning for you sometime.

Not, it isn't just the typos, NS.  What, for instance, does " ... can you outline how a reader could determine between the two models, which are contradictory, that you are proposing, can be used by a reader since that posits a third model, contradictory to the other two?".  This is just a semi-random juxtapositioning of phrases that has no real meaning as it stands.

[Hope]

Where?

On a number of threads.