Biblical Translation

[Owlswing]

I'm sorry Owl, that I'm not able to provide you with the answers that you want to hear, and feel is my duty to provide.  It's all to do with something called debate.

That is the problem - You do not DEBATE!

In a debate people put up questions and others answer! It has been pointed out on more occasions that I care to count that the one thing that you NEVER do is answer the questions asked of you; you, by your own admission, answer the questions you see not the questions asked regardless of the number of times other people, more patient than I, explain to you the questions that they want answered! You don't want to answer, or are incapable of answering, those questions so you answer another question instead!

And you can tell me I am wrong as many times as you like it, but does not change the fact that I am not. I may be wrong on a lot of theings but not on your obfuscation.

[Hope]

Please show me were on the "Put me out of misery thread"

1) You identified a non-naturalist aspect of life.

2) A methodology where you can assess it's non-naturalness.

I'll answer the latter first.  A methodology that relies of naturalistic physical evidence alone is never going to even recognise non-natural phenomena, and with some here refusing to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way to discover reality, then explaining such a methodology is difficult, if not impossible.

As for the first question - try my first post on the thread.

[Shaker]

And you could always decide that purely physical evidence isn't the only way to discover reality.

You could decide that things fall to the ground when dropped because the planet sucks, if you want to; the point is, what's the methodology you're proposing to evaluate your claims and to ascertain whether they're true or not?

As I've said before, that is the stumbling block.

No, the stumbling block, as many of us old-timers know of old and as Stephen Taylor has recently found out, is that whenever you're asked to provide a methodology for evaluating your handy-wavy claims about other aspects of being and other realms of reality and whatnot, you bottle it.

Your insistence on there only being one acceptable form or definition of evidence means that you can't (or should that be 'won't') see beyond it.

That's because my methodology for finding stuff out is clear and consistently reliable and accurate - what's yours?

[Shaker]

I'll answer the latter first.  A methodology that relies of naturalistic physical evidence alone is never going to even recognise non-natural phenomena

So what methodology do you suggest for "recognising" these alleged "non-natural phenomena," beginning with ascertaining if they even exist in the first place?

[Owlswing]

So what methodology do you suggest for "recognising" these alleged "non-natural phenomena," beginning with ascertaining if they even exist in the first place?

FFS Shaker

Do you really enjoy smashing your head repeatedly again a stone wall?

[Gordon]

I'll answer the latter first.  A methodology that relies of naturalistic physical evidence alone is never going to even recognise non-natural phenomena, and with some here refusing to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way to discover reality, then explaining such a methodology is difficult, if not impossible.

You haven't explaining this alternative methodology at all though: not even once.

So now would be a good time to put us out of our misery.

[Shaker]

FFS Shaker

Do you really enjoy smashing your head repeatedly again a stone wall?

Not in the slightest. I do however take an admittedly malicious delight in revealing just how hopeless Hopeless is at answering questions

[jeremyp]

Interestingly, the Hebrew verb 'to die' used in the Genesis 2 passage you quote is somewhat different from that used by Eve in the Genesis 3 passage, suggesting that they are referring to different forms of death.
I think that my reference above points to your comment being less than truthful.

And Hope provides even more evidence to support my point.

I accept that English isn't always as flexible and nuanced as Hebrew and even Koine Greek

I don't. I accept that there may be nuances in Hebrew and Greek words that make them difficult to translate but I don't agree that the concepts cannot be expressed in English.

Whereas people like you seem to believe that specific versions of the material - in English - are the only valid ones.

I'm not the one claiming that the Bible is God-inspired. I'm not the one who treats it as a holy text. If your god is so powerful, he should have been able to ensure that the English language version doesn't portray him as a blatant liar.

Whilst there is an element of truth in that, jeremy, the later authors, especially when it coes to the Hebrew Scriptures, would have known a lot about those matereials that came before theirs.

That looks a lot like wild speculation. A lot of Greek speaking Jews in the period couldn't read Hebrew at all. We know this because the Septuagint exists. It's also the case that the New Testament - also Greek - tends to use the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew when quoting from scripture.

As for the New Testament, much would seem to have come from the same sources with basically only the Pauline material being separate from those sources.

The evidence doesn't support that assertion. We know for a fact that the synoptic gospels use at least two written sources, and all those letters expressing a profusion of theological ideas, sometimes contradictory, must have multiple sources.

[jeremyp]

with some here refusing to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way to discover reality, then explaining such a methodology is difficult, if not impossible.

How do you know that when you haven't even tried?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I'll answer the latter first.  A methodology that relies of naturalistic physical evidence alone is never going to even recognise non-natural phenomena, and with some here refusing to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way to discover reality, then explaining such a methodology is difficult, if not impossible.

As for the first question - try my first post on the thread.

Firstly, you need to define what the non-natural phenomena is you are talking about. You did not identify one in you first post on the other thread.

I do not refuse to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way. I will change my view when presented with a different methodology. The only constraint I apply is that such a method should be able to differentiate between likely true and likely untrue claims.

So far you haven't presented a methodology though. 

Your evasion tactic consists of you insisting that people want your methodology to based on naturalistic methods, when I have never seen a single person do so.

This really is very simple. All we need is an example of a non-natural phenomena and a method for how you know it is a non- natural phenomena.

[Shaker]

Firstly, you need to define what the non-natural phenomena is you are talking about. You did not identify one in you first post on the other thread.

I do not refuse to accept that the naturalistic physical approach is not the only way. I will change my view when presented with a different methodology. The only constraint I apply is that such a method should be able to differentiate between likely true and likely untrue claims.

So far you haven't presented a methodology though. 

Your evasion tactic consists of you insisting that people want your methodology to based on naturalistic methods, when I have never seen a single person do so.

This really is very simple. All we need is an example of a non-natural phenomena and a method for how you know it is a non- natural phenomena.

Brilliantly put.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stephano,

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

Your new to the forum, so maybe you have missed all of my masterful postings.

The message is there in plain sight, this is where you start.

Matthew 22:36-40

The two Greatest Commandments, now if you are a non Christian, then only pay attention to the second Commandment, "Love your neighbour as yourself" why!! because in trying to practice the second you are loving God with all your heart, soul and mind.

It's there in black and white, only requires a little thought, one of the important bits is "and the second is like it".

For further reading try Karen Armstrongs " The Bible a Biography" or "The Case for God".

Can't remember which of the above books talks about the various Prophets from the old Testament, but Armstrong shows us that they are trying to preach that one simple message "Love your neighbour as yourself".

She also mentions a Rabbi Hillel who was a older contemporary of Jesus, a quote from her 2009 Ted Talk.

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, who, when asked by a pagan to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching while he stood on one leg, said, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah and everything else is only commentary."

https://www.ted.com/talks/karen_armstrong_let_s_revive_the_golden_rule/transcript?language=en

As the Rabbi explains about the Torah, it is the same for the Bible, if you want to study the Bible, make sense of its teachings, first take the Second Greatest Commandment into your heart, live it breath it.

When you read the Bible and any part of it runs against the Second Commandment, challenge it, if it does not agree with the Second Commandment, if it steps away from the Second Commandment, ditch it, put a line through it.

Here Endeth the lesson.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Dear Stephano,

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

Your new to the forum, so maybe you have missed all of my masterful postings.

The message is there in plain sight, this is where you start.

Matthew 22:36-40

The two Greatest Commandments, now if you are a non Christian, then only pay attention to the second Commandment, "Love your neighbour as yourself" why!! because in trying to practice the second you are loving God with all your heart, soul and mind.

...

That may work for you but that isn't an unambiguous message from any god - it's your take on an old, incoherent and often self-contradictory collection of books, written by humans.

[jeremyp]

Dear Stephano,

Your new to the forum, so maybe you have missed all of my masterful postings.

I too have not been with the forum long enough to have read your masterful postings. Presumably they went in one of the purges.

The message is there in plain sight, this is where you start.

Matthew 22:36-40

If it is that simple, why is the Bible so long? Why is it that so many Christians have such a narrow definition of "neighbour"?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Dear Stephano,

Your new to the forum, so maybe you have missed all of my masterful postings.

The message is there in plain sight, this is where you start.

Matthew 22:36-40

The two Greatest Commandments, now if you are a non Christian, then only pay attention to the second Commandment, "Love your neighbour as yourself" why!! because in trying to practice the second you are loving God with all your heart, soul and mind.

It's there in black and white, only requires a little thought, one of the important bits is "and the second is like it".

For further reading try Karen Armstrongs " The Bible a Biography" or "The Case for God".

Can't remember which of the above books talks about the various Prophets from the old Testament, but Armstrong shows us that they are trying to preach that one simple message "Love your neighbour as yourself".

She also mentions a Rabbi Hillel who was a older contemporary of Jesus, a quote from her 2009 Ted Talk.

https://www.ted.com/talks/karen_armstrong_let_s_revive_the_golden_rule/transcript?language=en

As the Rabbi explains about the Torah, it is the same for the Bible, if you want to study the Bible, make sense of its teachings, first take the Second Greatest Commandment into your heart, live it breath it.

When you read the Bible and any part of it runs against the Second Commandment, challenge it, if it does not agree with the Second Commandment, if it steps away from the Second Commandment, ditch it, put a line through it.

Here Endeth the lesson.

Gonnagle.

You would think that was clear wouldn't you and I'm sure there is not a Christian on here who would argue with it.

So all sorted there is a clear and simple message ! Hurrah!!

.... Ahhh, but then maybe not.

The problem then comes in understanding what loving your neighbour means. For me a clear example of loving my neighbour is to extended them the same rights and equality that I enjoy in my life.

I don't think we need to look to hard to find Christian members of this forum who may agree with the concept of loving your neighbour but actual seek to discriminate against people on the grounds of there sexuality or gender.

So all that has happened is that we have moved the problem back a step and now have to agree on what loving our neighbour actually means.

Again, some clear guidance from the boss man would not go amiss.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stephen,

The problem then comes in understanding what loving your neighbour means. For me a clear example of loving my neighbour is to extended them the same rights and equality that I enjoy in my life.

Understanding, correct, and yes that is a clear example.

But it is not simple, the Second Commandment is there to make you think, think deeply about what it means, here is another example of someone who thought deeply about the Golden rule.

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Almost every religion in the world embraces some definition of the Golden rule, it is important, it should be imprinted into every young brain way before they even learn the two times table.

I don't think we need to look to hard to find Christian members of this forum who may agree with the concept of loving your neighbour but actual seek to discriminate against people on the grounds of there sexuality or gender.

You may be right, and if you hear any Christian condemning anyone because of their sexuality or gender, point them to the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, call them a hypocrite, tell them to go and study the teachings of their leader, the man who put the First and Second Greatest Commandments above all other message in the Bible.

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

Dear Stephen,

Understanding, correct, and yes that is a clear example.

But it is not simple, the Second Commandment is there to make you think, think deeply about what it means, here is another example of someone who thought deeply about the Golden rule.

Almost every religion in the world embraces some definition of the Golden rule, it is important, it should be imprinted into every young brain way before they even learn the two times table.

You may be right, and if you hear any Christian condemning anyone because of their sexuality or gender, point them to the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, call them a hypocrite, tell them to go and study the teachings of their leader, the man who put the First and Second Greatest Commandments above all other message in the Bible.

Gonnagle.

Quite commendable sentiments Gonners, we all share most of those thing with you, why the need for a man made and very unlikely Mr Magic anywhere in the background?

ippy   

[Owlswing]

Dear Stephen,

You may be right, and if you hear any Christian condemning anyone because of their sexuality or gender, point them to the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, call them a hypocrite, tell them to go and study the teachings of their leader, the man who put the First and Second Greatest Commandments above all other message in the Bible.

Gonnagle.

Jeez, Gonnagle

This pointing of those on this forum who claim, some most forcefully, to be Christian and who condemn homosexuals and lesbians and MTF and FTM transexuals usually results in those doing the pointing to be labelled hypocrite.

There have been two or three Christian posters on here who have used the word hypocrite almost to extinction. I lost count of the nunber of times that I was called hypocrirte by one of them and almost lost count of the times when it has been used by another!

The hypocrisy of some Christians was and is one of my most abiding reasons for having rejected and continuing to reject Christianity.

Instance: I have yet to meet any Christian who can reconcile Exodus 22:18 with the Sixth Commandment. I only use this example because these verses have the possibility to affect me personally. 

You, Gonners, are not, to my knowledge, one of those who use "hypocrite" as a term of abuse  to us non-Christians.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Quite commendable sentiments Gonners, we all share most of those thing with you, why the need for a man made and very unlikely Mr Magic anywhere in the background?

No need, if the Golden rule is so imprinted in your brain that you live your whole life by it, then this Mr Magic as you call him will be quite happy.

Gonnagle.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Dear Stephen,

Understanding, correct, and yes that is a clear example.

But it is not simple, the Second Commandment is there to make you think, think deeply about what it means, here is another example of someone who thought deeply about the Golden rule.

Almost every religion in the world embraces some definition of the Golden rule, it is important, it should be imprinted into every young brain way before they even learn the two times table.

You may be right, and if you hear any Christian condemning anyone because of their sexuality or gender, point them to the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, call them a hypocrite, tell them to go and study the teachings of their leader, the man who put the First and Second Greatest Commandments above all other message in the Bible.

Gonnagle.

I don't disagree with anything of those sentiments. If we were all to think more then the world would be a better place.

In the absence of a God, which is obviously the case for myself, the only thing we can do is try to work things out for ourselves. However, I think my point still stands that if there is a God who has wishes and wants to make them clear to us then he would do better if he gave us a personal update on a regular basis to show us were we are going wrong, rather than relying on words that have been translated over and over.

[Dicky Underpants]

So all that has happened is that we have moved the problem back a step and now have to agree on what loving our neighbour actually means.

Again, some clear guidance from the boss man would not go amiss.

Agreed, Stephen. Jesus, at first glance, has set the standard very high - many would say impossibly high (but Christians would say this is a good thing, but they've always got the cop-out of St Paul, who says that because the standards are high, all you really need is faith). That apart, you then have to decide what exactly is meant by 'love' - and in the koine Greek of the NT there are apparently five words for this English word (don't know what the original Greek of the NT is in this instance). At any rate, Jesus was presumably speaking Aramaic, and I don't know how many words for 'love' there are in that language - or whether Jesus' words were translated accurately  into Greek (always supposing he said anything of the kind anyway).

Hillel's dictum (cited by Gonnagle) is altogether more practical and helpful. Some might say it was easier to enact, but given the problems with Jesus' command, I'd say it was better to stick with Hillel, as his dictum presents fewer translation problems. Not harming your neighbour (as you would not harm yourself) in itself presents a difficult enough challenge.

[Brownie]

Agreed, Stephen. Jesus, at first glance, has set the standard very high - many would say impossibly high (but Christians would say this is a good thing, but they've always got the cop-out of St Paul, who says that because the standards are high, all you really need is faith). That apart, you then have to decide what exactly is meant by 'love' - and in the koine Greek of the NT there are apparently five words for this English word (don't know what the original Greek of the NT is in this instance). At any rate, Jesus was presumably speaking Aramaic, and I don't know how many words for 'love' there are in that language - or whether Jesus' words were translated accurately  into Greek (always supposing he said anything of the kind anyway).

Hillel's dictum (cited by Gonnagle) is altogether more practical and helpful. Some might say it was easier to enact, but given the problems with Jesus' command, I'd say it was better to stick with Hillel, and presents fewer translation problems. Not harming your neighbour (as you would not harm yourself) in itself presents a difficult enough challenge.

I thought you might find this interesting Dicky.  Love in Hebrew is "Ahava" ,  which is made up of three basic Hebrew letters, . These three letters actually are broken down into two parts: a two letter base or root, , and the first letter, , which is a modifier. The meaning of the two letter base, , is "to give". The letter "aleph" , which precedes these two letters comes to modify the meaning of the base word, "give". The meaning of , is "I give" and also "love".

That sounds OK to me, summed up in the word, ''Charity'' but people (not us of course  , are often confused by that word, thinking it just means dishing out goods and money when being charitable is a general attitude - being kindly towards others, treating them with care and respect, sometimes making allowances etc, basically considering their individual needs.

(We mustn't forget that love is not rude;  I used to think that was funny when I was a kid)

[OH MY WORLD!]

I see your attack on my faith Rhi, and I see your faith as listing to the moaning of the wind, and taking the punishment of it's anger.

Now as far as translations. Good way to go about it is see what the world means in the Greek and Hebrew and what the word meant in English during the time of translation. It's not difficult, atheists.

[Stranger]

Now as far as translations. Good way to go about it is see what the world means in the Greek and Hebrew and what the word meant in English during the time of translation. It's not difficult, atheists.

It's also, very, very far from an unambiguous message which one would hope any omnipotent, omniscient creator would have no difficulty at all in producing.

We are, instead, supposed to learn Greek, Hebrew and English at the time of translation and then deal with what is still an incoherent, disjointed and often self-contradictory text, together with all the sects, cults and denominations all telling us that they know the 'right' way to interpret it.

If your god exists, it's got a terrible communication problem...

[Hope]

It's also, very, very far from an unambiguous message which one would hope any omnipotent, omniscient creator would have no difficulty at all in producing.

We are, instead, supposed to learn Greek, Hebrew and English at the time of translation and then deal with what is still an incoherent, disjointed and often self-contradictory text, together with all the sects, cults and denominations all telling us that they know the 'right' way to interpret it.

If your god exists, it's got a terrible communication problem...

SKoS, what do you mean by saying that God has a terrible communication problem?   Remember that he chose to come to the earth at a time when global communication was beginning to take off.  Suddenly, a message could travel from the western edge of Europe to the sub-continent with minimal problems.  Ironically, we are now at a point in time when a message can travel around the world in seconds.  The Gospel is being shared with probably more people each day than ever in history.