I always thought it was a funny statement to say "It's all Greek to me" in reference to not understanding something. I don't know how Greek was chosen, because if I look at any foreign language - they are all as confusing as the next. But anyway, the thought I wanted to bring today is the way in which people discuss the original languages of the Bible.
I have heard many times (and have even thought myself) that if I could learn both Biblical Hebrew and Greek; I would study the Bible like never before. I think of how much learning could be gained from reading the text as it was recorded. I have never actually went as far as going to college for this purpose, but many have.
But, what if we studied the Bible in our language the way we say we would if we learned Greek/Hebrew? Would we not gain the same? Seriously, what if we looked to the words and expounded them out, read intensely, and were open and eager to hear God speaking? I know English, I have an English Bible; put the two together and what's the difference?
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
What are your thoughts? post a comment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Evangelism Resources
Posts
Read Your Bible, Pray Every Day
ReplyDeleteRead your Bible, pray every day,
Pray every day, pray every day.
Read your Bible, pray every day,
And you’ll grow, grow, grow.
And you’ll grow, grow, grow.
And you’ll grow, grow, grow.
Read your Bible, pray everyday,
And you’ll grow, grow, grow.
Don’t read your Bible, forget to pray,
Forget to pray, forget to pray.
Don’t read your Bible, forget to pray,
And you’ll shrink, shrink, shrink.
And you’ll shrink, shrink, shrink.
And you’ll shrink, shrink, shrink.
Don’t read your Bible, forget to pray,
And you’ll shrink, shrink, shrink.
This is of course a huge area of debate. My view is that no other document can be perfectly translated with guaranteed retention of every little nuance of meaning, so why should anyone assume that the translation of the Bible was perfect?
ReplyDeleteThe Bible was written in another language, using concepts and metaphors from another culture, so I don't think that it's possible to just pick a copy up off the shelf and know what was meant by the original works that make up the Bible. The metaphors and culture and nuances of _Shakespeare_ have to be explained to modern readers, and Shakespeare's world was much, much closer to ours.
I think that if it is important to a person to know what the Bible truly means, then it's important to study the culture, the metaphors, the languages, all the different translations, all the different interpretations.
Of course, you can go with the theory that the translators were divinely inspired. That's an argument that dismisses everything about the actual normal process of translation, so it's not an argument that interests me - either you believe it or you don't, so there's nothing to discuss.
I agree with you that either you believe it or you don't; and I wish more people who called themselves "Christian" would understand this.
ReplyDeleteI do have two other things to say.
First is that our belief of anything does not change the reality of it. I can believe the Bible or not; but my belief will not change whether it is true or not.
And, If the Bible is true - then yes being divinely inspired, would dismiss everything about the normal process of translation - that would mean (just as the Bible claims to be) it is not just words of men, but the Word of God recorded by men.
Well, I can't agree that the two assumptions must go together. Even if you believe that the original writings were divinely inspired, that does not necessarily mean that the translations were. I don't think that most Christian churches hold to the divinely inspired translation idea.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet if God is able to divinely record His Word in the original languages; is He not equally able to divinely record His Word when it is translated?
ReplyDeleteAgain, if you believe it, you believe it. But it's still far from universal for Christians to hold to _both_ beliefs.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if "Christians" believed the Bible they have; instead of excusing it by saying the original languages (which most don't speak or read) could mean something else - then it wouldn't be so universal for Christians to be viewed as hypocrites. And for this I apologize to you and all non-Christians.
ReplyDeleteI just want to note that I am not saying all Christians are hypocrites. And in my previous comment I should have said "maybe if more Christians..." to reflect that. I know many who practice what they preach and do believe the Bible and obey it. Unfortunately, most non-Christians will remember the pretenders.
ReplyDeleteThere are many very sincere Christians who believe many different things. Not all of them believe in precisely the same sort of Christianity that you do. Maybe you don't accept the idea of _any_ flexibility in beliefs, and maybe you feel that a person who doesn't match your beliefs in every possible way isn't really a Christian.
ReplyDeleteBut they consider themselves to be Christians. They're a lot closer to being convinced of your beliefs than, say, I am. But when you call them hypocrites and mock their beliefs in quotes ("Christians"), you have largely eliminated any hope of persuading them to your beliefs.
Christianity isn't supposed to be a way of having the pleasure of saying "I'm right and you're wrong." It's supposed to be more than that. If you can't have flexibility, I think that you can still disagree with other Christians with respect.
And now I'm planning to be done, because it's ridiculous for a non-religious person like myself to have an argument about religion. :)
I do believe there is a lot of flexibility in different beliefs, but if the Bible makes a stand on specific issues - how can there be flexibility on that specific issue to believe differently (at least if you claim to believe the Bible)?
ReplyDeleteI am not saying to anyone I am right - you are wrong; neither am I trying to persuade anyone of my beliefs. I am saying the Bible is right, if we believe differently, we are wrong.
It is also not my intent to call Christians hypocrites to mock them (and I am not referring to all Christians) but to compel them to live what they say they believe. A hypocrite by definition is someone who claims to believe something, but lives in contradiction to the belief they claim.
Your argument assumes that your interpretation of the Bible is correct. Words are not the equivalent of telepathy; words require interpretation. The Bible is full of stories and metaphors, and stories and metaphors require interpretation.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Christ wasn't _literally_ a sheep. "Lamb of God" is a metaphor. It's probably a metaphor that you think is perfectly straightforward, but it is nevertheless a metaphor, one that requires interpretation. And there are other metaphors that are much, much less straightforward.
It's possible that you are not the single person in all the world that is interpreting the Bible correctly. In fact, well, how likely does that seem, that you're the _one_ person who has it exactly and totally right, who doesn't need to accept input from others, who doesn't need to think it over?
If you want to persuade others to your views, I think that you have to be sufficiently open to their views to understand them. I think that you need the humility to accept that you might sometimes have gotten something wrong. I don't think that your God gave you a brain with the intent that you would never question, interpret, analyze, empathize, doubt, or search for meaning. I don't think that you should assume that your spiritual journey is over, that you're done learning.
Your religion honors humility and condemns arrogance. I think that the humble man would accept that he might sometimes be wrong. I'm not trying to talk you out of your faith in the Bible, but I am suggesting that the others who also have faith in it, but don't interpret it in precisely the same way that you do, may have something to teach you.
I am not trying to persuade other Christians to believe just like me. I do not claim to be the only one who has it right; And I know I am not done learning - matter of fact I am always open to being wrong if what I believe is in contradiction to the Bible (which is why it is so important to read it) - because the Bible is the authority when it comes to Christian faith.
ReplyDeleteIf I come across as arrogant - I apologize again to you; it is not my intent; I humbly accept that I am no authority of anything. What I am trying to say to those who say they are Christian, is that to make that claim includes a lot with it:
1) There are essential doctrines that if someone does not believe, they can't claim to be Christian because those essential doctrines are the doctrines that define Christian belief. There are many non-essential doctrines that many disagree with, and these are the ones that there is flexibility.
2) The Bible also says that a Christian's life will be the evidence of their repentance and faith in Jesus (which repentance and faith in Jesus is how the Bible says one becomes a Christian). I can't assert that someone with a life lived in disobedience to the commands of Christ, hasn't repented and put their faith in Jesus (only God knows that) but, if their life is such - there is reason for concern. Because the Bible talks about hypocrites who will say I've done this and that in your name and Jesus will say depart from Me, I never knew you.
Oh I forgot to mention, yes the Bible has many metaphors - but it is also full of black and white statements; and Christians (including myself) cannot excuse them by saying the culture was different, or the original languages may say something else, etc. If the Bible can't be trusted on some things; it can't be trusted on anything.
ReplyDeleteChickenFreak, I just wanted to let you know I made a post on this subject of what it means to be a Christian.
ReplyDeletehttp://missionaryminded.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-it-means-to-be-christian.html