How literally should the Bible be interpreted?

[Kiddo]

Very true. But at the same time when compared it's amazing how much agreement there really is. The inconsistencies are actually much smaller than what skeptics would have a person believe. Additionally it's very easy to find a bible that documents the various inconsistancies in the texts. Once you see what they are, you can tell that there are a few passages worth noting and the rest are nit picking differences which usually alter the meaning of the text little or not at all.

I wouldn't say the Bible is infallible, but I will say that it's pretty close. To me it's amazing how little the text has changed.

They can't even agree whether homosexuality is a moral sin or a sin of uncleanliness. Not to mention...

King James Version: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
New International Version "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Those sound a bit different to me. The word in Arameic for "abomination" is the same as for "unproductive" or "unclean", which would indicate homosexuality is a sin of uncleanliness. The same kind of sin as cross breeding livestock or eating shell fish. That is not how it was interpreted to me when I was a kid. To say I'm a little pissed would be an understatement.

What motivated the translator to choose the word "abomination" or "detestable" over "unproductive" or "unclean". And then I found out that most Arameic translators in the world are people who were taught through the church, and often even taught by using the Bible as a reference. It's easy to keep it the same when it's the text you learn from.

 

[Usehername]

Very true. But at the same time when compared it's amazing how much agreement there really is. The inconsistencies are actually much smaller than what skeptics would have a person believe. Additionally it's very easy to find a bible that documents the various inconsistancies in the texts. Once you see what they are, you can tell that there are a few passages worth noting and the rest are nit picking differences which usually alter the meaning of the text little or not at all.

I wouldn't say the Bible is infallible, but I will say that it's pretty close. To me it's amazing how little the text has changed.

+1.

I have the Quest Study Bible; its insides are the text in NIV, and the equivalent page space on the boarders is filled with context of the verses, a collection of interpretations, and just lays it out there and lets you interpret it with the info they provide. There are intros to every book, who wrote it, what timeline and what was going on politically and socially when it was written, etc.
Now, clearly it is not as good as learning the original text, but I'll take 2nd best for the easy way out

 

[Totenkindly]

Very true. But at the same time when compared it's amazing how much agreement there really is. The inconsistencies are actually much smaller than what skeptics would have a person believe. Additionally it's very easy to find a bible that documents the various inconsistancies in the texts. Once you see what they are, you can tell that there are a few passages worth noting and the rest are nit picking differences which usually alter the meaning of the text little or not at all. I wouldn't say the Bible is infallible, but I will say that it's pretty close. To me it's amazing how little the text has changed.

I would be careful equating infallible = correctly transmitted.

I think transmission accuracy and content accuracy are two different things. One is concerned with whether the latest documents accurately reflect the original. The other is concerned with whether the original document accurately reflected history.

But I do agree with you, and the Bible variations often include "alternate" translations of phrase/words/passages that translators have historically been unsure of how to deal with. The transmission seems to be very good. My concerns all involve the "historicity" element.

On another note, I think translators of Aramaic are homophobes, sexists, and bigots.

Oh gee, I wish you'd actually just come out and say what you mean, instead of always beating around the bush.

 

[Kiddo]

Oh gee, I wish you'd actually just come out and say what you mean, instead of always beating around the bush.

Well you have to ask yourself, what kind of person would want to learn Aramaic in the modern day? 100 years ago? 500 years ago? I would have to say somebody who already has a religious conviction and is "morally" grounded in the beliefs presented in the current Bible.

 

[sassafrassquatch]

I really don’t know what you see in the bible that’s so great.

I've read most of the NT, chunks of the OT and sat in church every sunday until I was about 15 or 16. The bible is dull, dull, dull. It starts off with a bunch of myths, some sick evil shit, misc tribal nonsense, and a lot of bad poetry. In the gospels we get to hear jeebus prattle on about some rubbish and dance around the question when people ask him if he's god. After the gospels there are Paul’s letters which are responsible for most of the homophobia, misogyny, sexual repression, and general fuckedupedness in Christian theology.

The purpose of it all being for god to sacrifice himself to himself so he could appease his anger at a creation he knew would fail to live up to his impossible standards which was the plan from the beginning so he could pan the whole thing off as a grand gesture of love to his toy people whom he created because he was lonely.

Seriously guys, that’s pretty messed up.

 

[Kiddo]

Ohhhhhhhh! You are going to hell now.

 

[Totenkindly]

I really don't know what you see in the bible that’s so great...

I'm wondering how much of the Bible is a litmus test for what we already perceive about life.

 

[sassafrassquatch]

Ohhhhhhhh! You are going to hell now.

I sold my soul to Old Scratch years ago.

I'm wondering how much of the Bible is a litmus test for what we already perceive about life.

Like what? Use the bible as some kind of moral standard?

 

[Usehername]

Well you have to ask yourself, what kind of person would want to learn Aramaic in the modern day? 100 years ago? 500 years ago? I would have to say somebody who already has a religious conviction and is "morally" grounded in the beliefs presented in the current Bible.

my university prof who taught religions of the world was crazy into all types of religion and really passionate about them all. (super I, N, F, P to him, so he was not a normal person
he is agnostic.

 

[Kiddo]

my university prof who taught religions of the world was crazy into all types of religion and really passionate about them all. (super I, N, F, P to him, so he was not a normal person
he is agnostic.

But did he know Aramaic? Was he passionate enough to learn a language that probably fewer than a few thousand people in the whole world know?

 

[Usehername]

But did he know Aramaic? Was he passionate enough to learn a language that probably fewer than a few thousand people in the whole world know?

i highly doubt it; he was a young guy. i was just illustrating my point that people can be passionate about ancient texts without being attached to them.

 

[Kiddo]

i highly doubt it; he was a young guy. i was just illustrating my point that people can be passionate about ancient texts without being attached to them.

I was mostly referring to how translators may be religiously motivated.

 

[miss fortune]

for an interesting note on people who speak aramaic- one of my family friends graduated from Yale with a doctorate in divinity years ago before going into religious social work in a variety of latin american countries- he was very interested in what changes the bible had gathered through the translations it had gone through since the origional texts and actually learned aramaic and several other old languages in order to better understand what the real, origional bible said

according to him, most of the things that social conservatives spend way too much time harping about are mistranslations

this man was raised conservative, but after spending way too many years studying the really old texts of the bible he became a liberal- I just thought that might be an interesting note to add to this discussion!

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

They can't even agree whether homosexuality is a moral sin or a sin of uncleanliness. Not to mention...

King James Version: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
New International Version "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Those sound a bit different to me. The word in Arameic for "abomination" is the same as for "unproductive" or "unclean", which would indicate homosexuality is a sin of uncleanliness. The same kind of sin as cross breeding livestock or eating shell fish. That is not how it was interpreted to me when I was a kid. To say I'm a little pissed would be an understatement.

What motivated the translator to choose the word "abomination" or "detestable" over "unproductive" or "unclean". And then I found out that most Arameic translators in the world are people who were taught through the church, and often even taught by using the Bible as a reference. It's easy to keep it the same when it's the text you learn from.

I'm referring to the original Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) texts. If you want the most accurate translation of a particular text then I wouldn't look at any one translation. I'd look at several translations and use a concordance (and possibly an interlinear bible as well). Use all of the sources to discern the meaning. If I'm still not sure after that I'd ask a religion professor that understands the original language.

I know some hold that there is an "inspired translation" (usually the KJV), but I think that's kinda nuts. It's the original writings that are important.

I would be careful equating infallible = correctly transmitted.

I think transmission accuracy and content accuracy are two different things. One is concerned with whether the latest documents accurately reflect the original. The other is concerned with whether the original document accurately reflected history.

But I do agree with you, and the Bible variations often include "alternate" translations of phrase/words/passages that translators have historically been unsure of how to deal with. The transmission seems to be very good. My concerns all involve the "historicity" element.

Maybe I should have been more careful with my wording. I thought the context of this discussion had to do with transmission accuracy.

 

[Kiddo]

this man was raised conservative, but after spending way too many years studying the really old texts of the bible he became a liberal- I just thought that might be an interesting note to add to this discussion!

Seriously?

I guess if you based all your moral beliefs on the traditional and found out that they were misrepresentations, it would be a bit of a shock. But to change you entire sociopolitical alignment; that is a quite shocking. He should write a book.

 

[miss fortune]

Seriously?

I guess if you based all your moral beliefs on the traditional and found out that they were misrepresentations, it would be a bit of a shock. But to change you entire sociopolitical alignment; that is a quite shocking. He should write a book.

he should- the man worked with the opposition in overthrowing Pinochet and counseled torture victims- very fascinating

(of course a few months of prozac should come free with the book to go with some of the stories he can tell)

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

for an interesting note on people who speak aramaic- one of my family friends graduated from Yale with a doctorate in divinity years ago before going into religious social work in a variety of latin american countries- he was very interested in what changes the bible had gathered through the translations it had gone through since the origional texts and actually learned aramaic and several other old languages in order to better understand what the real, origional bible said

according to him, most of the things that social conservatives spend way too much time harping about are mistranslations

this man was raised conservative, but after spending way too many years studying the really old texts of the bible he became a liberal- I just thought that might be an interesting note to add to this discussion!

If I remember my church history correctly, a lot of this misunderstanding goes back to how a lot of these denominations got their start in the U.S. In the early days most learning institutions were in Europe, so there were very few educated preachers in the U.S. A lot of denominations grew slowly waiting for an educated leader to come start a church for them. The Baptists on the other hand were one group that decided to simply use uneducated leaders to head their churches. Consequently the Baptists grew quickly since there was nothing much holding them back from building churches. The Methodists, I believe, had a compromise between the two approaches. They had a trained leader who would travel in a circuit and teach various congregations "methods" which they could practice while the preacher was gone. So they had guidance from an educated leader, but he usually wasn't there.

Consequently there hasn't been as much of a focus on formalized training in a lot of popular U.S. denominations. A lot of the older denominations put more emphasis not only on the original languages, but also on commentaries that a lot of early church leaders had on the passages. Anywho, my opinion is that it was something of a mixed blessing. The basic messages of the Bible are simple enough that it doesn't take a highly trained person to communicate them. On the other hand the uneducated leaders are going to be confused on a lot of the finer points. Who knew that some of these finer points would become huge issues someday?

 

[Kiddo]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that Aramaic was the language the Bible was originally transcribed in, and then translated to Hebrew, and finally to Greek.

From what I understand, Aramaic versions can differ considerably from their Hebrew and Greek counterparts.

 

[Usehername]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that Aramaic was the language the Bible was originally transcribed in, and then translated to Hebrew, and finally to Greek.

From what I understand, Aramaic versions can differ considerably from their Hebrew and Greek counterparts.

i never manage to remember this (actually i think i never let the info sink in in hte first place). i thought that the OT and NT were written in different languages, though.

i thought hebrew and greek were the originals. or aramaic was only part of the OT. am i just making this up b/c i am swamped with the killer biochem final an dgoing crazy?

 

[miss fortune]

Bible translations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

aparently there are 3 ancient bibles floating around out there- Greek, Aramaic and Latin!

hope this helps!