hwt@watmath.waterloo.edu (Henry Troup) (09/20/89)
Both the discussion of editions here, and the Book of Common Prayer/ Book of Alternative Services debate raging in the Anglican Church of Canada have prompted me to dig this up: When King James II first saw St. Paul's Cathedral in London, he pronounced it "awful, pompous, and artifical'. You may think that he didn't like ti -- but he did. He meant that it inspired awe in him, it was stately, and finely worked. The meanings of all three words have reversed in three centuries. Why, then trust a three-century old translation into English of the Word of God? Personally, I think the Jews have the right of it - rather than translate the Scripture, teach everyone the to read the original. utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bnr-public | BNR is not | All that evil requires hwt@bnr (BITNET/NETNORTH) | responsible for | is that good men do (613) 765-2337 (Voice) | my opinions | nothing.
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (09/23/89)
In article <Sep.20.04.20.31.1989.19529@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bmerh490!hwt@watmath.waterloo.edu (Henry Troup) writes: > >Personally, I think the Jews have the right of it - rather than >translate the Scripture, teach everyone the to read the original. I remember reading a translation of the Koran (or Quran, or however you want to spell it) once that apologized for being a translation. The translators commented that they realized that no translation could do justice to the original. They also said that a Muslim who really wants to read the Koran will learn Arabic and read it as originally written. I found this to be a very convicting statement. How many Christians do you know who can even read one word of Greek? Let alone Hebrew. I must confess that my Greek is pretty bad, but at least I'm working on it. -- Geoff Allen \ Since we live by the Spirit, {uunet,bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ let us keep in step with the Spirit. ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \ -- Gal. 5:25 (NIV) [There is at least some argument in the other direction. From all accounts, the Koran is a work of poetry, and really does not translate well. The NT is written in very straightforward language. Tbe problem with trying to read it in the original Greek is that the places where translation is a problem are places where those with only a cursory knowledge of Greek are likely to jump to the wrong conclusion. I do believe that it is useful to study Greek. But I suggest that unless you go fairly far with it, you should use it primarily to help you understand commentators whose notes are based on the Greek. In my experience, when people start referring to the Greek, there's a good chance it's because they're trying to sell a theory that isn't accepted by most scholars. It's a sure way to end a discussion: "It says here in the Bible ..." "But according to Pastor X, the word translated as day really means night". What can you say? --clh]
garys@decvax.uucp (Gary M. Samuelson) (09/27/89)
Regarding learning Greek and Hebrew in order to read the Bible in the original languages: Don't forget Aramaic. And should we also learn, for example, Syriac, so that we can verify for ourselves that some of the questionable Hebrew passages are properly understood? Geoff Allen writes: >I found this to be a very convicting statement. How many Christians do >you know who can even read one word of Greek? Let alone Hebrew. I must >confess that my Greek is pretty bad, but at least I'm working on it. If Geoff Allen is thereby convicted that he ought to master Greek and Hebrew, may God bless him in his studies. But he ought not -- and I do not say that he is -- think that others should be likewise convicted. The moderator comments: >In my experience, when people start referring to the >Greek, there's a good chance it's because they're trying to sell a >theory that isn't accepted by most scholars. It's a sure way to end a >discussion: "It says here in the Bible ..." "But according to Pastor >X, the word translated as day really means night". What can you say? This is a very good point. I suppose ideally, we would all be fluent in both the Greek and Hebrew and be equipped to handle these situations. My own belief is that God *wants* us to understand the scriptures, even those who do not have a facility for learning multiple languages. My experience agrees with the moderator's, and to take it a step farther, I don't think I have ever heard a compelling argument based on the Greek that could not be made in English as well. Two examples come to mind: That baptism should be by immersion. One can argue that this is so because the Greek word "baptizo" means to immerse. Or one can argue that this is so because Paul compares baptism with burial in Romans 6:4: "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death..." Or concerning the Ethiopian in Acts 8:38: "And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him." They would not have needed to go down into the water if they thought that sprinkling or pouring would suffice. The other example I thought of is in regard to John 1:1, which some have said should read "the word was a god" rather than "the word was God." Well, I know enough Greek to respond to that, but it seems much simpler to say that if there is only one God, and the word was a god, then the word must be that one God. I realize that there are readers who may not hold to the interpretations I have cited above, but the point I am making is that the arguments are not entirely dependent on knowing Greek. Gary Samuelson
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (09/29/89)
In article <Sep.23.04.22.37.1989.17377@athos.rutgers.edu> geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) writes: >I found this to be a very convicting statement. How many Christians do >you know who can even read one word of Greek? Let alone Hebrew. Psalm 119:11 says "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.". I can only reliably hide the Word of God in my heart that I might not sin against Him, i.e. such that it can be essentially unconsciously recalled, understood and applied, if I know that Word in a language that is extremely familiar to me. While knowing a verse in the original Hebrew or Greek may be more accurate, its meaning as it applies to my every day life in that language has far less impact on me than its english translation. I am far better off with an english translation which has not distorted the original meanings too much than with a highly accurate, if not original, manuscript. The King James translation is one such translation. Translations like the NIV, while they are apparently easier to read, have done major injustices to some passages. One such example is 1 Corinthians 7:1. The NIV says that it is good for a man not to marry. The original says that it is not good for a man to touch a woman if he is not married to her. The problem with translations like the NIV is that those who did the translation thought that they could figure out exactly what God meant and help us to understand it. They must have forgotten their human inferiority and, at least temporarily, assumed a higher level of authority than the Holy Spirit Himself, the only one who is truly qualified to help us understand the infinite mind of our Creator. Another extremely likely scenario, and I do not mean to ascribe any disrespect to the translators of the freer translations but am merely extrapolating my own human weaknesses, is that they unconsciously misinterpreted the meanings of some passages in order to avoid facing some particular sins in their lives. Another point worth considering is that it would be impossible for me to involve my children, especially those who are very young, in my Biblical studies if I insisted on doing them in some language which they are not being taught to use throughout their day-to-day activities. I want them to hide the Word of God in their hearts too so that each of them can minimize his sins against his Creator. I also want to be able to effortlessly call to mind applicable Scriptures when witnessing to my colleauges at work or to someone whom I may encounter out on the street, or wherever else, in a way that will be meaningful to them. We are not called to edify only ourselves, but rather to go out into all the world preaching the Gospel in a tireless search for those who were lost. I have made the personal decision that I can have the best of both criteria, the use of my native language and a high degree of accuracy and minimal loss of original meaning, by using the King James translation of the Scriptures. Those who are truly serious about studying the Scriptures may well have a tremendously difficult time learning a completely different language, but will not have that hard of a time learning the nuances between old and modern english. A person who cannot learn that "thou" means "you" will never succeed at learning the whole bunch of new word mappings, grammatical structures, and even concepts that come with any foreign language. I thank God that He has written the Bible in such a way that it can be reliably translated into any other language, for having insured that those translations are readily available for all of us to use, and for having granted us the skill of reading so that we can use them. I also thank Him for having given us concordances so that we can, with minimal if any knowledge of the original languages, clear up any errors that the translators may have made. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3 [I looked in all the commentaries I could find in the Rutgers library, to see what various commentaries had to say about the Greek of I Cor 7:1. Literally, it is "It is well for a man not to touch a woman" (RSV). However there are issues of interpretation with "touch" and "woman" (as well as the earlier part of the verse, but I didn't realize until now what the issue was, so I didn't take enough notes to give a coherent account of that part). The Greek word behind "touch" has several meanings. All commentators (and my Greek dictionary) agreed that in this context it implies sexual intercourse. The only difference in opinion was whether "touch" was a euphemism or whether intercourse should actually be considered one meaning of the word. The Greek word behind "woman" can also mean "wife", and in fact is the same word translated "wife" in 7:2. No commentator that I looked at saw Dave's suggested meaning of "married woman", i.e. someone else's wife, nor did any of the translations that I have translate it that way. If you take the meaning to be "woman", then you get the RSV translation, which is followed by most modern translations. If you take the meaning to be "wife", then you get something whose literal translation should probably be something like "it is well for a man not to unite himself with a wife". Translating it "not to marry" loses the explicit sexual reference, but seems to capture the meaning as needed by this context. NIV is not alone in translating it as "marry". TEV (Good News Bible) does also. However the majority interpretation seems to be with the RSV. --clh]
jamesa@amadeus.wr.tek.com (James Akiyama) (09/29/89)
> Don't forget Aramaic. Actually, Aramaic is very close to biblical Hebrew (at least the form present today). Hebrew and Aramaic is oftentimes taught together. > The moderator comments: >>In my experience, when people start referring to the >>Greek, there's a good chance it's because they're trying to sell a >>theory that isn't accepted by most scholars. It's a sure way to end a >>discussion: "It says here in the Bible ..." "But according to Pastor >>X, the word translated as day really means night". What can you say? Actually, I don't find this to always be the case. Oftentimes, they are trying to make a point which is debated between different denominations. > My experience agrees with the moderator's, and > to take it a step farther, I don't think I have ever heard a compelling > argument based on the Greek that could not be made in English as well. Probably the most compelling reason here is areas where the Greek and English vary in the ability to convey an idea. For instance, Greek also has the "perfect tense" (english does not). Also, Greek does not have the "indefinite article" (english does). For the first point, english has "past tense" (e.g. "he was here"), "present tense" (e.g. "he is here") and "future tense" (e.g. "he will be here"). Greek has the "perfect tense" which implies always was, is, and will be (an important concept in describing God). There is a certain amount of tradeoff a translator must make when translating the "perfect tense"; between exactly conveying the tense verses making the translation easy to read. The second point is the center of the John 1:1 controversy. Greek has no "indefinite article" (e.g. "the Word was a god"). It does have "definite article" (e.g. "the Word was God") as well as "no article" (e.g. "the Word was God). > The other example I thought of is in regard to John 1:1, which > some have said should read "the word was a god" rather than "the > word was God." Well, I know enough Greek to respond to that, but > it seems much simpler to say that if there is only one God, and the > word was a god, then the word must be that one God. Again, the problem you've conveyed here is that in saying "there is only one God" you are implying "the God" (at least that what capital God usually means). There are other "gods"; this is quite evident from Exodus (among others): EXO 12:12 "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn--both men and animals--and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord. EXO 15:11 "Who among the gods is like you, O Lord? Who is like you-- majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? EXO 18:11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly." I should point out (which should be evident from my previous postings) that I do believe that Jesus is part of the Godhead; my previous posting simply indicated that John 1:1 is probably not the best argument for the trinity doctrine); there are others which I believe unquestionably imply Trinitarism. I do believe Greek and Hebrew are valuable; just as learning learning French helps you read French poetry. Something is always lost in Translations. The Bible is valued, not only for its authenticity, but also its poetic value. Most translations need to compromise one or the other (usually some of both). The importance of the poetic value can't be underestimated; it served as part of the weighting when deciding which books should be included in the Canons of Scripture. A translation leaves you one step away, just as a paraphrase leave you further and a commentary, even further. I do not believe that learning Greek and Hebrew is for everybody (I'm still debating whether to learn it fluently myself). I do think its important for those who are trying to justify theology (especially controversial theology) within their own minds. But then, as I've always contended, I'm not sure how much "theology" God intended us to learn; Paul states: 1CO 13:9-10 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 1CO 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. and Peter gives: 2PE 3:15-16 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. With that, I believe that much theology (especially those which are contro- versial) simply becomes "man's best guess"; things which should not divide the body of Christ. In Him; James E. Akiyama jamesa@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM UUCP: ....!uunet!tektronix!amadeus.WR.TEK.COM!jamesa ARPA: @RELAY.CS.NET:jamesa%amadeus.WR.TEK.COM
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (10/03/89)
In article <Sep.29.01.15.17.1989.12968@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: (actually, our moderator appended) >... No commentator that I looked at >saw Dave's suggested meaning of "married woman", i.e. someone else's >wife, This is regarding 1 Corinthians 7:1 which says "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: {It is} good for a man not to touch a woman.". It would appear that there has been a slight misunderstanding. I never meant to say that I thought this verse teaches that it is good for a man not to touch someone else's wife. This is extremely good advice, but that is not what I believe God is saying here. I believe that He is telling us something much more restrictive, which is that it is good for a man not to touch any woman at all unless she is his wife. This is yet another Scriptural principle that really goes against the grain of today's sociological norms, but the Bible does declare that the ways of the world tend to always contradict those of God. The NIV's it is good for a man not to marry is not only unScriptural, after all God Himself caused Adam to marry, but also entirely removes the principle that this verse declares. One who guided his life by the NIV's version of this piece of divine advice would easily convince himself that things like extra-marital dancing and even fondling are acceptable before God. God, on the other hand, wants us to know that the only place for any form of intimacy between a man and a woman, and the only place for even those things which may tempt one toward such intimacy, i.e. physical contact, is only within the marriage relationship itself. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (10/05/89)
In article <Oct.2.20.13.39.1989.10381@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: > >In article <Sep.29.01.15.17.1989.12968@athos.rutgers.edu> >This is regarding 1 Corinthians 7:1 which says "Now concerning the >things whereof ye wrote unto me: {It is} good for a man not to touch a >woman.". > >It would appear that there has been a slight misunderstanding. I never >meant to say that I thought this verse teaches that it is good for a >man not to touch someone else's wife. This is extremely good advice, I think we should pay more attention to something the moderator mentioned about this verse, namely the first phrase "Now concerning the things whereof you wrote unto me..." We have the interesting situation here that we have Paul's response to something the Corinthians wrote to him - that is we have the answer but we don't have the question. One question (which the moderator mentioned) is: Is the second phrase (It is good for a man not to touch a woman) part of the question, or part of Paul's response? I'm inclined to believe it is part of the question but I would not be surprised if I were proven wrong. Since much of the rest of the chapter concerns the question of "should we marry?" I think that must be more or less the question put to Paul. Further, I think some unpleasentness must have been involved since in verses 24-27 Paul seems to council that the unmarried (and the married) remain as they are "for the present distress" (again, I don't know what this distress was). I still have some questions about this chapter, but I believe a careful reading in light of the above can be helpful.