Definition problems

[Zzyzx]

.
In one of the threads someone gave the following alternative translations and various Bible versions for "evil".

The Hebrew word for evil is ra, it can also mean "envious," "bad," "ugly," "ungenerous," "gloomy," "malignant," or, in the case you mention, "calamitous." (Genesis 2:9; 40:7; 41:3; Exodus 33:4; Deuteronomy 6:22; 28:35; Proverbs 23:6; 28:22)

CEB uses "doom." AMP and ISV uses "disaster." CJB uses "woe."CEV uses "sorrow." ESV uses "calamity."

That is about a dozen different suggested words of widely differing meanings offered as English translation of the Hebrew term for "evil".

Who is to say what the author(s) intended -- and on what authority? Does one consult multiple Bibles and pick the one that they like best (or which best fits the argument they are trying to make)?

Some Apologists appear to consider themselves an authority on "what the Bible really means" with the ability to state definitively the authors' intent -- as though religious belief imparted special abilities and knowledge that are unavailable to Non-Believers.

[David Henson]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

So all we end up doing is both using Jesus as a Marionette Doll in an effort to have Jesus backing up our personal opinions.

In fact, Theists do this all the time.

Imagine my surprise. All of that study and research and all I had to do was buy a ventriloquist doll. What if I said that God's day of rest was due to God being tired and I didn't know that there was a verse saying God does not tire. I just make something up? What about if a skeptic of my work points out the errors in linguistics, scholarly consensus, secular historical comparisons, transnational anomalies, etc.

Just make something up?! And am I to understand this is a mutual phenomenon among both theist and skeptics?

. . .

Nah!

So all we end up doing is both using Jesus as a Marionette Doll in an effort to have Jesus backing up our personal opinions.

What would be the point in that? If I'm presenting the truth, which I've made up and you are presenting the rejection of the truth that you made up . . . we would just be blithering idiots on the superhighway of misinformation.

[Looks into the light] With all of those people watching us . . . Hold me Divine. I'm frightened.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to David Henson]

I have found that this seems to be the most difficult thing for skeptics to deal with.

Its a language issue, isn't it? We tend to think in a peculiar fashion. The sky is blue. The grass is green. Sometimes the sky isn't blue, its red, or grey, or yellow, or orange, or black with white polka dots. I've even seen it green. And the grass isn't always green.

You may be onto something. When I was a boy I was told that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead, and that he later ascended to heaven. And I believed. When I reached my teens however I came to realize that "Jesus was resurrected" was just another way of saying that his corpse had come back to life, and that "ascended" was just another way of saying that he flew off up into the sky and disappeared. The central claim of Christianity is that a corpse became reanimated and that the reanimated corpse flew away and disappeared. Which is just about as believable as Santa and his team of flying reindeer. Actually thinking about what it is you are supposed to believe can really screw up the believing it part, you see.

[Divine Insight]

What would be the point in that? If I'm presenting the truth, which I've made up and you are presenting the rejection of the truth that you made up . . . we would just be blithering idiots on the superhighway of misinformation.

No David, you are horribly mistaken here.

For one thing, if you think that you are "presenting the truth" then you have only managed to delude yourself on that count. Few other people will be gullible enough to accept your opinions on that. Although I'm quite sure you could find people who are that gullible.

Also, I wouldn't be "rejecting" the biblical "interpretations" that I embrace.

In fact, my "interpretation" of the entire Biblical Canon is that the Yahweh described in the Old Testament if clearly nothing more than a very poorly made up imaginary deity. A deity that would be an embarrassment to anyone decent person. Unless you believe that a person who thinks it's the highest level of morality to torture people for eternity simply because they don't worship you.

The Old Testament teaches the most immoral principles possible and proclaims that they are the attributes of a perfectly moral deity. It's an oxymoron from the opening Chapters of Genesis and only goes down hill from there.

Christianity is an extremely belated and quite lame attempt to have Jesus "save the day" by preaching moral values far above those of Yahweh. But unfortunately they end up having Jesus condemn people to everlasting punishment too. So not only was it too little, too late, but they end up making Jesus no better than Yahweh.

My interpretation of the "New Testament" is that it was potentially inspired by a man who did tried to bring higher moral values into the religion of his home culture but failed miserably to do so. And instead of teaching people higher moral all he managed to do was get himself brutally crucified and then made into an imaginary "Super God" who is then used to prop up and support all the immoral principles that he actually tried to replace.

Matthew even has Jesus proclaiming that he did not come to change the laws and that no one jot or tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass.

To be perfectly honest with you I don't believe that Jesus who might have sparked these rumors would have ever said such a self-defeating and utterly stupid thing. He was clearly trying to bring higher moral values in to the religious beliefs of his culture, and he failed miserably to do so.

Jesus was no doubt just a mortal man no different from you or me.

And that is a valid "interpretation" of these ancient stories. The claim by theists that non-theists aren't in a position to make a valid "interpretation" of superstitious rumors that they don't believe are the "Divine Word of God", is absolute nonsense.

My Jesus Marionette Doll is just as valid as yours even if he does represent a mere mortal man.

This religion is actually a "Hate Cult" specifically designed to spread hatred toward anyone who refuses to join it and support it.

And it was designed 2000 years ago to control the masses of gullible people who would believe just about any superstitious tale they were told.

Today this left-over political machine is still coasting along on the momentum of superstition which only demonstrates how powerful superstition can be and how gullible humans can be.

This religion is an absolute insult to all that is GOOD.

It's based on a God character who is no better than the worse human sadist you could name.

How much worse could a sadist be than to lust to throw anyone who refuses to worship them into a state of eternal torture?

And would could possibly be the purpose of that?

The ONLY purpose that could possibly make any sense at all is because the Sadistic God that is doing this somehow enjoys torturing people for eternity.

What other rational purpose could their possibly be?

This religion teaches us that we were created by a vengeful sadist, and that torturing people for eternity is the HIGHEST MORAL PRINCIPLE. Because this is precisely what this God does and he's supposed to represent the highest possible morality.

I make no apology for the rolling eye emoticon I just used.

The Biblical God (and Christianity) is an insult to any decent person.

Unless you think that torturing people for eternity to satisfy a sadistic urge represents a "Decent Person".

[Zzyzx]

.

It is, after all, words. Language. You face the same difficulties in everyday life. In this discussion.

In many areas of study, communication and discussion there is a concerted effort to minimize difficulties and misunderstandings by assigning specific meaning to words.

In these debates, however, it often seems as though Apologists (in particular) play word games by assigning special definitions (jargon) to words and/or re-translating words to fit their argument.

When a Non-Theist quotes the Bible (even “in context�) saying XYZ the counter is “what it really means is ABC – (totally different). Or “a day can mean a thousand years to God.� It is immaterial what a day means to “God� – we are not debating gods AND are not debating anyone who can SHOW that they know what a day means to God.

Likewise, “three days in the grave� evidently means from Friday evening to Sunday morning or about 36 hours – half the 72 hours of three days. It makes no difference what “three days� meant to ancients if the PRESENT literature retains the three day figure – and if Apologists attempt to maintain that modern English language Bibles are accurate and reliable – AND if Apologists attempt to retain the “three day� stance.

If modern English language Bibles are NOT accurate and reliable WHY would anyone attempt to defend them as being such?

Only it is maybe complicated by religiosity. Reading something in it that isn't there or not reading it contextually.

Agreed. Presumably, though, all of us speak / write in modern English (usually as our first language). Few would have difficulty understanding the meaning of this paragraph – BUT many would if I used words to obfuscate rather than communicate.

For instance: Few = millions; modern = Old English; difficulty = sadness; paragraph = thread.

I am aware that there are at least 120 English language versions of the bible http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts_basic.html

I am not aware that they have all been classified into two categories. Who did that research and where is it published?

Its usually in the title. King James Version, New World Translation, English Standard Version, Good News Translation . . .

Actually, David, it is a bit more complex than that would indicate. About half or more of the Bible names listed do not contain the words version or translation – so that's not much help.

Perhaps more helpful:

Literal translation. Attempts to keep the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text, but sometimes hard to understand. Keeps a constant historical distance. Examples: King James Version (KJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Dynamic equivalent (thought for thought) translation. Attempts to keep a constant historical distance with regard to history and facts, but updates the writing style and grammar. Examples: New International Version (NIV), Revised English Bible (REB).

Free translation (paraphrase). Translates the ideas from the original text but without being constrained by the original words or language. Seeks to eliminate historical distance. Readable, but possibly not precise. Examples: The Living Bible (TLB), The Message.

TRANSLATION
Normally, "translation" means simply that - that the particular bible was translated from one language to another. Note that, though *most* modern translations are from original language documents, many are not. Also, some are taken from more ancient (more authoritative is a better adjective) documents than others. Thus, the NASB or ESV are translated from "the most authoritative original language documents" while the NKJV New Testament is translated from a much less authoritative original language document and the Knox Bible is translated from the Latin Vulgate (not an original language document at all).

VERSION
*Strictly* speaking, a "version" is a particular translation *or* major revision *or* paraphrase of a bible. What separates one version from others is that it is significantly different from all existing versions. Generally, a version will always have the same title, regardless of how many minor revisions it undergoes. Therefore, we have the King James Version (which has undergone several mostly minor revisions), the New King James Version (which is an entirely new translation of the same primary source texts used by the translators of the King James Version), and the King James Version Easy Reading (which changes the wording of the King James Version to make it easier to read). We also have the New International Version - an entirely new translation that employed no reference bible. All of these are different versions, so "version" does *not* mean altering an existing translation - most versions are not altered translations. However, making significant alterations to an existing translation - as in the case of the King James Version Easy Reading - *is* one way to produce a new version. Translating from the original languages is another way to produce a new version. All translations are versions.

REVISION
An important concept to know with bibles is the term "revision". Normally, a "revision" is an entirely new translation that makes use of another bible version as a *reference*. In such a case, when the new translation agrees with the reference bible version, the wording of the reference version is used (perhaps with modernized vocabulary). Some good examples: the King James Version was a revision of the Bishops' Bible. The New Revised Standard Version (notice the word "revised") is a revision of the Revised Standard Version, which in turn is a revision of the American Standard Version, which in turn is a revision of the English Revised Version, which in turn was a revision of the King James Version! Each of these revisions (NRSV, RSV, ASV, RV, KJV) employ fresh translation to produce the new version - but they use the previous version as a reference, so that the wording in one version is largely similar to the version used as a reference. The NRSV is not very like the KJV, but it *is* very like the RSV.

PARAPHRASE
At the "bottom rung" is a paraphrase bible. Unlike a translation or revision (which is also a translation), a paraphrase normally takes an existing translation and then modifies it in a certain way. The purpose of a paraphrase bible is, generally, to produce a bible that flows in a manner very similar to a novel: it makes the bible more pleasant to read. In the process, significant changes are normally made to the text. A paraphrase is sort of like a story, each paragraph written to tell you what a paragraph of the bible says, rather than an attempt to relay the precise message as written by the original authors. There *are* paraphrase bibles that employ translation, but most do not.


SUMMARY

Translation - exactly what it says, the bible version is the result of translation from another language

Revision - a translation that relies on a reference bible version for wording (when the translation agrees with the reference version)

Paraphrase - a story in which every paragraph tells you what a paragraph in the bible says or means.

Version - any bible that is significantly different from all other bibles. Translations, revisions and paraphrases are all examples of versions.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 142AACdZEe

Also see http://www.mardel.com/bibleTranslationGuide

Another (though unlikely seeming by name) presentation of similar information. http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/BibleType.htm

[David Henson]

[Replying to post 12 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I know what you mean. When I was a kid I watched a lot of science fiction. Space stations, handheld communication devises, telaportation, highly intelligent beings from space who had powers beyond humanity.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 12 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I know what you mean. When I was a kid I watched a lot of science fiction. Space stations, handheld communication devises, telaportation, highly intelligent beings from space who had powers beyond humanity.

Handheld communication devises and space stations have become modern realities. Teleportation is at least theoretically feasible, but still very much within the realm of science fiction. Not even science fiction considers flying reanimated corpses to be feasible however, to the best of my knowledge. That is the realm of pure magic and fantasy.

[JehovahsWitness]

.
In one of the threads someone gave the following alternative translations and various Bible versions for "evil".

The Hebrew word for evil is ra, it can also mean "envious," "bad," "ugly," "ungenerous," "gloomy," "malignant," or, in the case you mention, "calamitous." (Genesis 2:9; 40:7; 41:3; Exodus 33:4; Deuteronomy 6:22; 28:35; Proverbs 23:6; 28:22)

CEB uses "doom." AMP and ISV uses "disaster." CJB uses "woe."CEV uses "sorrow." ESV uses "calamity."

That is about a dozen different suggested words of widely differing meanings offered as English translation of the Hebrew term for "evil".

Who is to say what the author(s) intended -- and on what authority? Does one consult multiple Bibles and pick the one that they like best (or which best fits the argument they are trying to make)?

Some Apologists appear to consider themselves an authority on "what the Bible really means" with the ability to state definitively the authors' intent -- as though religious belief imparted special abilities and knowledge that are unavailable to Non-Believers.

Who is to say what the author(s) intended -- and on what authority?


As with any literature, one has to judge the intended meaning from context. Once a person can read, they have the authority to asses what they are reading. No one has to "give" them permission to do this, its a innate right.

Does one consult multiple Bibles ...?

Always a good idea; this comes Under the catagory of "research". Something that serious bible students do.

and pick the one that they like best (or which best fits the argument they are trying to make)?


If one is honest, it's best to fit the one that best fits the context (see above) and best reflects the meaning in the original language.


JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[marco]

[Replying to post 6 by marco]

The problem occurs in translation from any language, but in most cases the context gives the meaning we want. In translations from the Bible people often take a reading that does not square with the context, possibly because the meaning compromises their system of belief. In some cases the interpretation is almost the exact opposite of what the text suggests. Bad becomes good.

Could you provide an example of this, please?

You could do that yourself very easily; many arguments here are centred around conflicting interpretations. Take: Jeremiah 20:7 where one person laments that God deceived Jeremiah but you take it to mean Jeremiah was pleasantly surprised. There is almost a half-turn in interpretation here, I think.

But since you asked, here is one:

" For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

Anyone listening to this would certainly understand it to mean that Jesus would be coming back in their lifetime.

I'm sure you can find some abstruse meaning and so can I. One would have thought the Son of Man was adept at accurate communication, and said what he meant or meant what he said.

[David Henson]

Handheld communication devises and space stations have become modern realities. Teleportation is at least theoretically feasible, but still very much within the realm of science fiction. Not even science fiction considers flying reanimated corpses to be feasible however, to the best of my knowledge. That is the realm of pure magic and fantasy.

What exactly are you referring to when you say "flying reanimated corpses?"

[David Henson]

[Replying to post 18 by marco]

" For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

Anyone listening to this would certainly understand it to mean that Jesus would be coming back in their lifetime.

I'm sure you can find some abstruse meaning and so can I. One would have thought the Son of Man was adept at accurate communication, and said what he meant or meant what he said.

The Bible never taught that Jesus would return in a physical sense. He did what he came here to do. But that some of those near him would see the him coming in his Kingdom was fulfilled just 6 days later, as is explained in the paralel verse of Mark 9:1-8 - Furthermore, he went on to say to them: "Truly I say to you, There are some of those standing here that will not taste death at all until first they see the kingdom of God already come in power." Accordingly six days later Jesus took Peter and James and John along, and brought them up into a lofty mountain to themselves alone. And he was transfigured before them, and his outer garments became glistening, far whiter than any clothes cleaner on earth could whiten them. Also, Elijah with Moses appeared to them, and they were conversing with Jesus. And responsively Peter said to Jesus: "Rabbi, it is fine for us to be here, so let us erect three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah." In fact, he did not know what response he should make, for they became quite fearful. And a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud: "This is my Son, the beloved; listen to him." Suddenly, however, they looked around and saw no one with them any longer, except Jesus alone.