Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Which bible is correct?
-
06-08-2007 03:47PM#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Scofflaw wrote:Ooh...bibliolatry!
True bibliolatry (worship of the Bible) is very rare. However, the word has become a useful term of abuse that simply means someone else holds the Bible to more authoritative than you yourself do. If you are a professing Christian who wants to dodge biblical teaching on a subject, then it sounds pretty wishy-washy to say that your opponent believes the Bible more than you do. However, to accuse them of 'bibliolatry' sounds much more impressive.
Those who say they believe in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture generally mean by this that the original autographs (in Greek and Hebrew) were what is without error. The Old Testament, it is usually agreed, comprises of the 39 books of Hebrew Scripture that Jesus Himself used and endorsed. The New Testament was written over a period of time (probably between 55 and 90 AD), so most inerrantists would see the original autographs of the New Testament as being the the first collection of the 27 books gathered together shortly after the writing of Revelation.
Of course the problem is that we don't possess a copy of these original autographs, and since early copies were all hand produced then we get minor variations between manuscripts. As with any typo, these variations are usually easily spotted and corrected, and do not generally impact upon any vital truth or hinder anyone's understanding of the message of salvation contained in the Scriptures. But part of Theology's task is to engage in textual criticism so as to try to determine the Hebrew and Greek text that, as much as we can tell, equates to the original. Obviously archaeological finds etc. have improved since 1611, so modern translations are generally based on a better Hebrew & Greek text that that used by the translators of the King James Version.
The problem with translations, of anything, is that one word in the original language often carries shades of meaning that can never be accurately translated by one single word in translation. This is why online translators, such as Babelfish, often produce nonsensical results. It takes a skilled translator to make the judgment call as to which shade of meaning in a word is intended, and often this means examining the context. This is especially difficult when translating puns (and the Hebrews were very fond of puns and wordplays - the Old Testament is full of them). For example, "One man's fish is another man's poisson" is a (very bad) pun on an old English proverb and a play on the French word for 'fish' - but if you tried to translate it into Japanese then a word for word translation would be incomprehensible.
Of course language also changes. We no longer speak the same English as was spoken in 1611 (and the language of the King James Version was outdated even when it was first produced, largely due to many religious people's silly notion that words become more holy if you say them in an archaic form and a pious tone of voice). I remember, as a child, being beaten by my Dad for using the word 'piss'. My objection, that the word 'pisseth' occurs 6 times in the King James Bible, did not save me from the beating. What was an everyday word in polite society in 1611 was no longer so in 1967 (although runtodahills will no doubt be gratified that the good King James Version terminology of 'piss' is now no longer as verboten as it was 40 years ago).
The point of this long and rather rambling post is that it is logically impossible for any translation of anything to totally convey all the meaning of the original with 100% accuracy. The best way to get a full understanding, other than learning a new language, is to compare different translations and to read the translators' notes.
Therefore, it is logically impossible for both the original autographs and the 1611 King James Version to be the uncorrupted Word of God. We have three main options:
1. The original autographs (including the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and the Greek texts as they came with the ink still wet from the pens of Matthew, Luke & Paul etc) were in themselves incomplete and corrupt. But, when translated by a committee of English and Scottish theologians and academics in the 17th Century then they at last achieved the full potential that God had been waiting for and became the pure, uncorrupted Word of God. This of course mans that only English speakers get to read or hear the true Word of God, since the full meaning of English words could never be fully expressed in a Chinese or French word-for-word translation.
2. The original autographs were perfect, and various manuscripts and translations through the centuries have, to a wonderful extent, captured the essence of what is contained therein. However, we recognise that no translation can ever be perfect (this, as you may guess, is my standpoint).
3. It's all a load of nonsense anyway. (The preferred option of some of our interlopers from the A&A forum).
0 -
-
-
-
PDN wrote:True bibliolatry (worship of the Bible) is very rare. However, the word has become a useful term of abuse that simply means someone else holds the Bible to more authoritative than you yourself do. If you are a professing Christian who wants to dodge biblical teaching on a subject, then it sounds pretty wishy-washy to say that your opponent believes the Bible more than you do. However, to accuse them of 'bibliolatry' sounds much more impressive.
Also shorter!PDN wrote:Those who say they believe in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture generally mean by this that the original autographs (in Greek and Hebrew) were what is without error. The Old Testament, it is usually agreed, comprises of the 39 books of Hebrew Scripture that Jesus Himself used and endorsed. The New Testament was written over a period of time (probably between 55 and 90 AD), so most inerrantists would see the original autographs of the New Testament as being the the first collection of the 27 books gathered together shortly after the writing of Revelation.
Of course the problem is that we don't possess a copy of these original autographs, and since early copies were all hand produced then we get minor variations between manuscripts. As with any typo, these variations are usually easily spotted and corrected, and do not generally impact upon any vital truth or hinder anyone's understanding of the message of salvation contained in the Scriptures. But part of Theology's task is to engage in textual criticism so as to try to determine the Hebrew and Greek text that, as much as we can tell, equates to the original. Obviously archaeological finds etc. have improved since 1611, so modern translations are generally based on a better Hebrew & Greek text that that used by the translators of the King James Version.
The problem with translations, of anything, is that one word in the original language often carries shades of meaning that can never be accurately translated by one single word in translation. This is why online translators, such as Babelfish, often produce nonsensical results. It takes a skilled translator to make the judgment call as to which shade of meaning in a word is intended, and often this means examining the context. This is especially difficult when translating puns (and the Hebrews were very fond of puns and wordplays - the Old Testament is full of them). For example, "One man's fish is another man's poisson" is a (very bad) pun on an old English proverb and a play on the French word for 'fish' - but if you tried to translate it into Japanese then a word for word translation would be incomprehensible.
Of course language also changes. We no longer speak the same English as was spoken in 1611 (and the language of the King James Version was outdated even when it was first produced, largely due to many religious people's silly notion that words become more holy if you say them in an archaic form and a pious tone of voice). I remember, as a child, being beaten by my Dad for using the word 'piss'. My objection, that the word 'pisseth' occurs 6 times in the King James Bible, did not save me from the beating. What was an everyday word in polite society in 1611 was no longer so in 1967 (although runtodahills will no doubt be gratified that the good King James Version terminology of 'piss' is now no longer as verboten as it was 40 years ago).
The point of this long and rather rambling post is that it is logically impossible for any translation of anything to totally convey all the meaning of the original with 100% accuracy. The best way to get a full understanding, other than learning a new language, is to compare different translations and to read the translators' notes.
Therefore, it is logically impossible for both the original autographs and the 1611 King James Version to be the uncorrupted Word of God. We have three main options:
1. The original autographs (including the Hebrew Scriptures used by Jesus and the Greek texts as they came with the ink still wet from the pens of Matthew, Luke & Paul etc) were in themselves incomplete and corrupt. But, when translated by a committee of English and Scottish theologians and academics in the 17th Century then they at last achieved the full potential that God had been waiting for and became the pure, uncorrupted Word of God. This of course mans that only English speakers get to read or hear the true Word of God, since the full meaning of English words could never be fully expressed in a Chinese or French word-for-word translation.
2. The original autographs were perfect, and various manuscripts and translations through the centuries have, to a wonderful extent, captured the essence of what is contained therein. However, we recognise that no translation can ever be perfect (this, as you may guess, is my standpoint).[]
3. It's all a load of nonsense anyway. (The preferred option of some of our interlopers from the A&A forum).
Well, first, I'm delighted to have given you the opportunity for such a lot of exposition!
Second, I'm not sure what one can call the belief in an inerrant KJV except bibliolatry (that having been the claim that the remark was directed to).
Last, I'll remind you that I'm no more an interloper here than you are, both being forum members in good standing, and that we've had that discussion.
cordially nevertheless,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
So by your record today TR, if a historian makes an honest mistake, her work is no longer good history? In my opinion, the idea that the Gospels aren't valid historical texts is the kind of view often expressed on the internet but never expressed in history departments.
PDN and I have offered arguments in this thread. As usual they are met with assertions. Its almost as if visitors to this board think historians work in a lab. 0 -
Excelsior wrote:So by your record today TR, if a historian makes an honest mistake, her work is no longer good history? In my opinion, the idea that the Gospels aren't valid historical texts is the kind of view often expressed on the internet but never expressed in history departments.
Surely any historical text that is not a modern forgery is a valid historical text?Excelsior wrote:PDN and I have offered arguments in this thread. As usual they are met with assertions. Its almost as if visitors to this board think historians work in a lab.
Hmm. To assert that because the Gospels are valid historical documents they are necessarily accurate and true is the usual bone of contention - the one does not imply the other.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
If, of course, one ignores the possibility that the NT did not describe events accurately in the first place; and ignores the possibility that the NT was modified since it was written; and ignores the possibility that other more accurate texts were discarded; and ignores the possibility that there were strong political motives for selecting texts and editions and truths; etc, etc, etc.Excelsior wrote:Either the New Testament texts are to read as intended, documents using the best historigraphical methods of their day or else all history of the ancient world is rendered impossible.
One only has to look as far as scientology to see how the most dim and facile poppycock can rise to the status of religious truth in a generation, and that's in the age of the recorded word, the recorded image and close to 100% literacy. To claim, without doubt, that Jesus spoke what he's quoted to have said and did what he is claimed to have done, is simply in violation of every principal of history.
I'm constantly amazed that the very healthy skeptical nit-picking that some posters apply to other people's views is unfortunately laid aside when their own beliefs heave into view.
Cough, cough -- see your quote at the top of this postExcelsior wrote:PDN and I have offered arguments in this thread. As usual they are met with assertions. 0 -
-
-
-
Obviously if historical facts are incorrect it is not good history. That's a tautology in my opinion. The texts may have other worth as I have alluded to.Excelsior wrote:So by your record today TR, if a historian makes an honest mistake, her work is no longer good history?In my opinion, the idea that the Gospels aren't valid historical texts is the kind of view often expressed on the internet but never expressed in history departments.
As for why some views are not presented in history departments well there are a number of reasons for that:
1. We are talking about events 2,000 years ago, that we just don't have good evidence for. It is much harder to have a historical debate about Jesus than it is to about Padraig Pearse or Daniel O'Connell.
2. Because Religion / Faith helps people cope with death and a humdrum life
it gets etc a special pass. It is rarely looked at critically and objectively.
Boards.ie is one of the few places in this state where there is a debate on the issues and you get diversity of opinion.
3. There are political conations with Religion. If a Minister in Ireland was to fund a project to investigate the extent of lies and propaganda of all Christian churches how many votes do you think he or she would get?
They have been met with rational critism and why shouldn't that be the case?If the Gospels were unquestionable accurate history, there would no need for faith. Maybe our rational critism remind you what your faith isPDN and I have offered arguments in this thread. As usual they are met with assertions. Its almost as if visitors to this board think historians work in a lab.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement