kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Darren F. Provine) (10/19/89)
In article <Oct.16.00.21.50.1989.14427@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) provides his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:1 -- > It categorically states that there ought not to be so much as even the >slightest degree of touching between unmarried people. This standard of >premarital conduct is sadly lacking in our world today. I happen to disagree with this interpretation, and I would disagree with it even if we use the word `touch'. Words are slippery things, and assigning absolute meanings to the words of someone else (particularly when you have only half of a conversation) is little more than speculation. (And please don't reply to this article by telling me that I'm rebelling against the Word of God and that if I was walking with the Holy Spirit then I would agree with you. You have no business judging me like that, and doing so will get you little besides a quick trip to my KILL file.) Dave laments that the NIV removes the absolute prohibition on contact from Scripture, and points out that this started when he was arguing for the most reliable translation possible. He adds: >The NIV translators apparently traded away a word-for-word translation in >favour of trying to help us understand what God meant. In doing so they >have lost many difficult to see yet extremely important messages from Him. which has a few problems: Firstly, 20th century American English is *very* object-oriented: word-for-word translations *create* meanings in the Bible that do *NOT* exist in the original languages, because much of the metaphorical import is lost. In other words, some of the `extremely important messages' that you are so worried about *may not be there*. [ Didn't we do this over in t.r.m. just a few months ago? I recommended reading Benjamin Lee Whorf, as I recall. Here's another plug for him. ] Secondly, there are *NO* word-for-word translations besides interlinears; unless that is the Bible you read, translators and scholars have re-arranged words, inserted words, and changed words to make the passages into sensible English. (Without this, the translation would be only slightly less gobbledygook than is Usenet. 8^) And if you *do* read an interlinear, then you are *still* re-arranging the text in your head as you read it -- in effect, you are doing the same thing the translators would do (but perhaps without either their knowledge or experience). Thirdly, you make an interesting comment when you say: > >Surely an all knowledgeable and all wise God does not need us sinful >human beings to clarify what He says. Surely His Holy Spirit does not >require the rephrasing of His Words by us sinful human beings in order >to bring people to salvation. We ought to leave His Word in tact and >just simply trust that He will bring its full power to bear on >whomsoever He pleases. Over & above my earlier complaint that it is not possible to translate the Bible *and* leave the words intact, this brings to mind some of the places in Scripture that *cannot* be left as-is; there are many places in Job and Proverbs (Job 6:6, 8:14, 21:24, 29:24, 30:12, 35:15, 36:20, 38:26, Proverbs 7:22, 12:27, 19:7, and more available upon request) wherein the meaning of a word (or in some cases an entire phrase) is unknown. There are literally *hundreds* of places where different manuscripts say different things, and there is no way of knowing which is correct. According to Ward Powers, author of _Learn To Read the Greek New_ _Testament_, "punctuation was NOT used in the earliest, uncial, manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, where in fact the practice of the time was to run all the words together without a space between them. [...] For example, are Romans 8:33b and 8:34b statements or questions? -- the Greek itself does not indicate which it is." [ from Page 22, emphasis in the original ] You state that: > > Any attempt to change His Words makes them become the words of men and >cease being the Word of God. But the fact of the matter is that nobody knows what His Words *are* -- there are hundreds of variant readings, passages that no one understands, and textual ambiguities. *ANY* version of the Bible you read, even if you read it in the original languages, is going to have this problem. (If you read it in the original languages, who will you learn from? And which version of the manuscripts will you read? Without punctuation, what will you do about the New Testament?) -=-=- Dave, unless you can produce documentation that you are a qualified translator of Koine Greek, then I have no reason to accept that you are in a better position to interpret 1 Corinthians 7:1 than are the translators of the NIV. A word-for-word translation just isn't sufficient -- putting literal meanings on English words when we don't know what the original words mean does nothing to relate God's Word intact. All it accomplishes is declaring some (sinful) person's interpretation infallible, which I am not willing to do. You were right when you said that God didn't need fallible people to clarify his word -- but the Bible he has given us is rife with words that don't translate, and metaphors that get lost under literalistic English interpretation. God may not *need* us to clarify his word, but He has shown that he *wants* us to engage in the effort, by making the Bible the way it is. Maybe we're supposed to learn something from the process that we couldn't learn from having the book handed to us already complete. Surely God can use fallible manuscripts to teach fallible people, n'est-ce pas? kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "All language is ambiguous. All artful language is MULTIPLY ambiguous." -- Michael L. Siemon
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (10/23/89)
In article <Oct.18.17.49.19.1989.2854@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Darren F. Provine) writes: >Maybe we're supposed to learn something from the process that we >couldn't learn from having the book handed to us already complete. God has written the Bible in the way He has so that only those whom He wishes to save can begin to understand its real message. Mark 4:11-12 says "And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all {these} things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and {their} sins should be forgiven them.". We may not like this very much, but the fact that God has even bothered to give us sinful and rebellious people the Bible complete with all of His warnings, offers and promises is far more than we deserve anyway. Let us be greatful and thankful for what we have and do our best to be as truthful as possible to it. We ought never use the apparent difficulties in the understanding of any given passage as a means to ignore what God is telling us. If we are not expending every possible effort not only to understand what God is saying but also to sincerely desire that it become our way of life then we are not really recognizing Jesus as the Lord of our lives. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 says "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this {is} the whole {duty} of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether {it be} good, or whether {it be} evil.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Darren F. Provine) (10/25/89)
In article <Oct.22.13.42.46.1989.25372@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes something that shows he didn't understand my earlier article: > > [ Dave points out that God didn't have to give us the Bible at all. ] > >Let us be greatful and thankful for what we have and do our best to be >as truthful as possible to it. We ought never use the apparent >difficulties in the understanding of any given passage as a means to >ignore what God is telling us. If we are not expending every possible >effort not only to understand what God is saying but also to sincerely >desire that it become our way of life then we are not really >recognizing Jesus as the Lord of our lives. Dave, I'm sure you don't intend it, but the way I read this is rather insulting. Your article suggests that I am ungrateful for the Scriptures God has given us, or that I'm not interested in learning from them because of the problems encountered. Let me assure you, both of these ideas are wrong. I do not disagree with you because I have some hidden agenda against the Bible, or because I want to make excuses and do things I know are immoral. I disagree with you because I don't believe that your interpretation is correct. I feel that your method of interpreting Scripture is not well-considered, and that your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:1 illustrates exactly what is wrong with your method. The KJV may seem to support your position, as it appears to have been written in plain English. But I think a more thorough examination of everything that goes into this leads to a different conclusion than the one you've reached. Consider the following: a) The KJV was written several centuries ago, and the English language is not the same now as it was then. (I offer as evidence the fact that most editions of Shakespeare's plays currently published come with notes that explain what many of the words and idioms mean, and that most people cannot fully understand the plays without them.) This disparity in language means that what seems like `plain English' may in fact be an idiom or expression that actually meant something else when it was written. b) The word in question, `touch', has numerous definitions in modern English (my dictionary lists 42). c) _Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament_ has 7 column- inches on the word Paul used, illustrating that there was no single locked-down meaning at the time; further, Thayer mentions that when used with the word translated `woman' it refers to "carnal intercourse with a woman, or cohabitation", and lists 1 Corinthians 7:1 as an instance of this usage. -=-=- In other words, Dave, my evaluation comes up the same -- in the absence of evidence that you are a trained translator, I must conclude that you don't have the experience or knowledge that is required to make an interpretation like this. And since the people who do have the necessary experience disagree with you, your interpretation loses out. You are apparently basing your understanding on a literal reading of a language you don't really speak, and you are ignoring the advice of Christian scholars who have studied Greek and are trained translators. And your position on this passage demonstrates exactly what I said in my last article: a word-for-word translation lends itself to misunderstandings, because people read the words but don't know what they are intended to mean. -=-=- Please note that I do not claim to be a qualified translator myself, but that I am only citing the opinions of scholars from books I own. If there are any people who know Greek well (Michael Siemon comes to mind), and who wish to point out my mistakes, I welcome their comments. kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "It is also important to note that although certain meanings of a word in one language are sometimes translatable into a word in another language there are very few if any words in two languages that are the same for all their meanings." -- R. Lado, _Linguistics Across Cultures -- Applied_ _Linguistics For Language Teachers_, pp 84-85
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (10/27/89)
In article <Oct.25.05.20.31.1989.24936@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Darren F. Provine) writes: >You are apparently basing your understanding on a literal reading of a >language you don't really speak, and you are ignoring the advice of Christian >scholars who have studied Greek and are trained translators. For the record, I not only freely, but also thankfully, admit that I have very few, if any, earthly qualifications that would give credibility to the positions I hold. I ask you, though, where the Bible teaches that great earthly knowledge is the key to its understanding. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 says "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, {are called}: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, {yea}, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) (11/10/89)
In article <Oct.27.04.29.54.1989.20707@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: > >For the record, I not only freely, but also thankfully, admit that I >have very few, if any, earthly qualifications that would give >credibility to the positions I hold. I ask you, though, where the Bible >teaches that great earthly knowledge is the key to its understanding. 1 I shall endeavor not to become abusive or uncivil in this reply. God give me strength. Mr. Mielke, if no earthly knowledge is necessary for you to understand just what God wants you understand when you read the Bible, then why do you need a translation at all? I should think that you could simply read the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and let the Spirit make sense of it for you. Once you deny that you (your own frail human self) are doing *any* of the interpretive work, there is no *reason* to have a Bible at all! I am not intending to be sarcastic; this is the actual (absurd) consequence of the argument you present. I cannot understand how anyone, given of God the miraculous (literally!) tool that is the human intellect, and its unprecedented and miraculous ability to actually ALTER THE FUTURE by FREE ACTS OF WILL, could sit smugly by and say "My intellect is irrelevant to my understanding of God's will". Please accept these words in the spirit of love in which they are intended. David M. Tate
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (11/15/89)
In article <Nov.10.02.34.34.1989.11690@athos.rutgers.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes: >I am not intending to be sarcastic; this is the actual (absurd) consequence >of the argument you present. Your entire reply has a very logical aura about it, but it has failed to answer my question. I shall, therefore, ask it again. Where do the Scriptures teach that great earthly wisdom is beneficial when it comes to their interpretation? You will find no such statement anywhere in the entire Bible. YOu will, however, find several Scriptures that state exactly the opposite. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know {them}, because they are spiritually discerned.". Proverbs 3:5-6 says "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.". I would also like to point out that a serious flaw in the belief that we need earthly wisdom to understand the Scriptures is that no baby could ever be saved. It would also preclude the saving of adults who, for one reason or another, possess severely impaired mental abilities. Fortunately God is not a respecter of persons and our salvation does not depend on our own individual abilities. You asked why we need a Bible at all if we do not need to possess earthly wisdom? I can think of at least two reasons. The first is that God wants the unsaved of this world to be confronted with His truths so that they cannot claim that they were left in the dark and so that He can clearly demonstrate that they cannot be understood by anyone other than those whom He has elected. The second is that the Bible provides a way for us to verify that we are doing God's will after we permit our thoughts to be tainted by all the sin that is going on around us and within our flesh. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
garys@decvax.uucp (Gary M. Samuelson) (11/20/89)
In article <Nov.15.03.35.42.1989.12004@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >In article <Nov.10.02.34.34.1989.11690@athos.rutgers.edu> dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes: >>I am not intending to be sarcastic; this is the actual (absurd) consequence >>of the argument you present. >Your entire reply has a very logical aura about it, but it has failed >to answer my question. I shall, therefore, ask it again. Where do the >Scriptures teach that great earthly wisdom is beneficial when it comes >to their interpretation? Intelligence, like everything else we have, is a gift from God. And, like everything else we have been given, I believe that God expects us to use it as good stewards. In Paul's discourses on gifts in I Corinthians and Ephesians, he points out that not everyone has the same gift(s), but that each person should use the gift God has given. "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." I Tim 4:2 (or is it II Tim 4:2?) "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said" I Cor 14:?) Also in I Corinthians, note what Paul said to the brethren who were taking each other to court. Essentially, he asked if there was no one among them with enough wisdom or understanding to judge between brothers, such that they had to resort to an ungodly court. "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all without reproach." James 1:? >You will find no such statement anywhere in the entire Bible. I automatically mistrust any argument that requires knowing the entire Bible all at once. Unless you have memorized the whole Bible, and have instant and perfect recall, not to mention a perfect understanding of every word therein, and in fact have a great deal of the earthly wisdom you say you reject, you cannot know for certainty that no such statement is anywhere in the Bible. For the statement which you say is not there may be in the one passage which you have not memorized, or may not understand perfectly. >You will, however, find several Scriptures that state >exactly the opposite. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says "But the natural man >receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness >unto him: neither can he know {them}, because they are spiritually >discerned.". Proverbs 3:5-6 says "Trust in the LORD with all thine >heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways >acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.". You seem to be cutting out your own support from under you. What would you do if I told you that your argument sounds very well reasoned? Would you thank me for the compliment, or repent? Put another way, how can I know that you are not leaning on your own understanding when you try to explain what these passages mean? How can you know that I am leaning on my own understanding if I say that you misunderstand what these passages mean? >I would also like to point out that a serious flaw in the belief that >we need earthly wisdom to understand the Scriptures is that no baby >could ever be saved. Babies don't need to be saved. "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. (Mt 18:10)" >It would also preclude the saving of adults who, >for one reason or another, possess severely impaired mental abilities. See above. >Fortunately God is not a respecter of persons and our salvation does >not depend on our own individual abilities. True enough. But God gave us those abilities, and will require an accounting regarding how we used them. >You asked why we need a Bible at all if we do not need to possess >earthly wisdom? I can think of at least two reasons. You are cutting your own support again. By your own claim, we must not put any stock into anything that starts, "I [] think," but only what starts with, "The Lord says." >The first is that >God wants the unsaved of this world to be confronted with His truths so >that they cannot claim that they were left in the dark and so that He >can clearly demonstrate that they cannot be understood by anyone other >than those whom He has elected. That is self-contradictory. If it is true that God's truths cannot be understood by anyone other than those whom he has elected, then the unsaved of this world can certainly claim that they were left in the dark. If God's truths cannot be understood by anyone other than the elect, then we cannot know if we *are* the elect, since we will not be able to understand the God's truths unless we are of the elect. Of course, anything I say you can reject on the grounds that I am leaning on my own understanding. Convenient. Gary Samuelson an read the letters to the churches in Revelation and not conclude that some of them were about to throw away their salvation. More on that later. Gary Samuelson
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (11/24/89)
In article <Nov.19.14.48.14.1989.13825@athos.rutgers.edu> bunker!garys@decvax.uucp (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >Babies don't need to be saved. "Take heed that ye despise not one of these >little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always >behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. (Mt 18:10)" You cannot prove that babies do not need to be saved with this passage. If you believe that this passage is referring to all babies, since this passage says that their angels ALWAYS behold the face of God, and since ALWAYS has no end, then no person would ever die unsaved. Since the Scriptures declare that, in the end, there will be more unsaved people than saved people, we know that this cannot be a correct interpretation. This passage, like all other passages, must be taken in context. A few verses earlier Jesus defines which little children He is referring to. He uses the phrase "these little children which believe in me". The verse you quote is saying that a baby who believes in Him will never lose his salvation. It is not, however, saying that all little children believe in Him. A search through the rest of the Bible reveals that there are no Scriptures whatsoever which declare that babies need not be saved. There are, on the other hand, plenty of Scriptures that declare babies to be just as sinful as anyone else. Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;". The word "all" is very significant here. If you are correct then babies are not included in the term "all". This would leave us with the conclusion that babies are not people. I think we would agree that this is an obviously incorrect conclusion, yet it is what your position mandates. Psalm 51:5 says "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.". This Scripture is telling me that God considered me to be a sinner already at the moment in which I was conceived. This occurred when I was younger than what most people would refer to as a baby. Since I know that I was saved much later than that, I know that I must, therefore, have been unsaved as a baby. I would like to draw your attention to a passage in Genesis which is too long to quote here. I shall recount the story and trust that this approach will suffice. It is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The evening before God estroyed both of these cities He told Abraham what He planned to do. Abraham, knowing that his nephew Lot lived there, began to plead for the preservation of those cities. The end result of this pleading was that God promised that He would not destroy them if there were only ten righteous people in them. We know that God did destroy those cities after forcing Lot, his wife, and their two daughters to leave. If babies do not need to be saved then there could not have been more than ten babies in those two rather large cities. This is so improbable that it defies acceptance. Another equivalent passage that demonstrates the same truth is that of the flood. The Scriptures are very clear that all those whom God viewed as righteous, i.e. all those who were saved, were on the arc. The only occupants of the arc were Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives. None of them were babies as they were all married. If your conclusion that babies do not need to be saved is true then there must have been no babies alive anywhere at that time. This, too, is so improbable that it defies acceptance. You have tried to make a bit of a mockery regarding my very Scriptural claim that we ought not lean on our own understanding. Your statement that babies do not need to be saved, however, helps me illustrate what I mean by that statement. You have taken one Scripture, perhaps you have a couple more, which you then apply your earthly intelligence to and come up with a conclusion. My approach is to always doubt every conclusion that I come up with until I am sure that there are no contradictory statements to it in the entire Bible. This often involves my not holding a firm position on an issue for a very long time. I keep all sorts of scenarios in mind as I read through the Bible and slowly eliminate the ones which the verses which I encounter disprove. Eventually, perhaps after a year or more, I am left with the single scenario that fits all of Scripture. Even though my Scriptural recall is far inferior to what I would like it to be, I then fervently proclaim what I have discovered by leaning solely on the Scriptures because I know that I have not encountered even one verse that disproves it. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3