[net.religion] Biblical literalness

ucbmonet.arnold@ucbcad.UUCP (06/23/83)

#N:ucbmonet:22400015:000:1806
ucbmonet!arnold    Jun 20 19:14:00 1983

Can someone tell me what we are all doing when we discuss whether the
Bible is literally correct?  I certainly have no business in such a
discussion, and I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that most of the
rest of you don't, either.  Do you understand classical Greek and
Hebrew?  If you do, have you read the original texts?  The King James
translation has notorious errors, and some questionable
interpretations.  As an example of the former, the word translated as
"camel" (as in "sooner shall a camel pass through the eye of a
needle...") is really the word for "rope" (which makes more sense).  As
an example of the later, my grandfather (who had the above
qualifications) informed me that the word used to describe Mary was not
the word "Virgin", but a word with connotations similar to our label
"Miss", i.e., an unmarried woman.  In those days (as in ours until
recently) this expected virginity, but did not require it.  Since a
word for "virgin" did exist in Greek and it wasn't used, one can
question whether that was the intended interpretation.

All this detail aside, I ask again:  why are we discussing the meaning
of various translations of the Bible?  Does anyone claim that THEY are
divinely inspired?

		Ken

P.S.  Before anyone thinks so, this is not an argument that we should
pack up the bags and go home.  Obviously there are some very
interesting religious arguments (dare I even suggest discussion and
exchange of information?) left to us.  The debate on omniscience is an
example of one.  Another would be the one on what God is doing today.
Let's just not debate over the precise words of translations.  Now, if
more than one person out there does meet the qualifications I listed
above, I would be fascinated to have them publicly discuss the literal
meanings of the Bible....