Do not trust your bible

[Zzyzx]

.
Over and over in these threads Christians attempt to defend bible story inconsistencies or errors by claiming "translation error" or occasionally "transcription error." They often go into long explanations of the Latin or Greek words and give their opinion on "the real meaning" of words in the bible.

Not only that, but there are considerable differences in word use (or translation or interpretation) between the many different versions of the bible.

In a current thread a religionist complains that when opponents take statements from the bible to mean exactly what they say, they are attempting to apply modern usage to ancient texts. Are bibles in general use NOT using (or attempting to use) modern language? Are they written / edited for ancients or for modern people?

If bibles in common use cannot be trusted to say what they mean and mean what they say, WHERE are bible believers supposed to learn truth? Not many are linguists fluent in ancient languages.

[Overcomer]

Let me re-post something I wrote in an obscure thread in the Random Ramblings forum and add some additional information as it pertains to this topic.

I know, ZZyzx, that you believe that, since the Bible is in English and you understand English, then you understand the Bible. However, it really isn't that simple. Every type of literature, Biblical or otherwise, has its own set of rules to be followed if one is to understand and interpret the material correctly and intelligently. The rules of hermeneutics, that is, interpretation of the Bible, are there to help people understand it as fully as possible. Unfortunately, too few people take the time to study them so that they can understand Scripture properly.

One of the first rules of Biblical exegesis has to do with genre. The Bible contains a variety of genres including historical narrative, proverbs, prophecy, poetry, biography, and epistles. Genre dictates understanding. We can't approach historical narrative the way we approach poetry or biography, for example. Each genre has its own features and those genres, as they are used, stem from the culture in which they were written.

That brings us to a second rule of hermeneutics. If we are to properly understand the Bible, we have to understand the culture, the literary styles in use at the times in which each of the books were written, the political situations, etc..

Take the gospels, for example. How do they line up with the genre of history in the ancient world? It turns out that they are representative of how ancient historians did history in several significant ways. For one thing, neither Greek nor Hebrew had any symbols for quotation marks. But that didn’t matter because people didn’t require a detailed word-by-word statement from those being quoted. An accurate summary or paraphrase was sufficient. Additionally, historians arranged the events of someone’s life thematically, not chronologically. So we should not be surprised to see minor variations in what Christ said or did or in the arrangement of events between gospels.

The issue of language is also important. The Bible was not written in English. It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Things can get lost in translation – often it’s the connotation. For example, when it says in Psalm 14:1 that a fool in his heart says there is no God, the word “fool� in Hebrew carries the connotation of moral depravity, not simply a lack of intellectual prowess. That gets lost in the translation. Sometimes there isn't an English word that thoroughly relates what the Hebrew or Greek word conveys. Or sometimes we have several synonyms to choose from and it's a matter of deciding which is closest to the original meaning.

I realize that not everybody can take the time to learn the original languages, but there are all kinds of lexicons, concordances, and dictionaries to help people get at the original meanings of the words and, in doing so, help us to understand Scripture better. And there are, of course, all kinds of commentaries by scholars who DO know Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic well.

It also helps to be familiar with literary devices as there are dozens and dozens of different ones used throughout Scripture including metaphor, hyperbole, parallelism, synecdoche, chiasmus, etc. And it’s full of idioms which the people of that day and age would understand and which aren’t always easy to translate into English. The form can reinforce the content and provide us with another way of knowing what the passage means.

Then there’s the issue of context. I can’t tell you how often I see people take a verse out of context and completely change its meaning in doing so. It’s called the fallacy of quoting out of context. It’s imperative that a verse be read in the context of the chapter in which it occurs as well as within the context of the whole book and, indeed, the entire Bible. How many times have you heard the media quote something that sounds damning to a politician or a celebrity only to find out that the statement was taken out of context and didn’t mean what the media suggested it meant at all? That’s what people do with the Bible all too often. And Christians can do it just as easily as non-Christians although it's more common among the latter.

We also know that the Bible has come down to us pretty much as it was when it was written. We have almost 6,000 New Testament manuscripts in Greek alone with thousands in other languages including Syriac, Coptic, Latin, etc., totalling almost 24,000 in all. With that abundance of material scholars can compare them to find out what is the correct interpretation. And the Dead Sea Scrolls show us that the Old Testament has remained unchanged as well.

There are some transcription errors, but none of them put any of the primary doctrines of Christianity into question. There are very few verses/words that scholars cannot agree upon and, again, none of them affect the primary doctrines re: the identity of God, Christ's atonement for salvation, etc.

Additionally, many people fail to understand what the Bible says because they don't understand the theology involved. In other words, the reader has to ask what God was doing in this passage and why he was doing it.

Lastly, I know atheists hate this, but there is the revelation of the Holy Spirit to take into account. That's one of his jobs. He helps us understand God's Word. That's an ongoing process for the Christian. Learning to understand the Bible is no different than learning to understand biology or history or mathematics or a foreign language. If we apply ourselves, we'll learn more and learn it faster. If we don't, we won't. So if Christians seem to be confused by certain passages or disagree on others, blame it on the student, not the teacher!

Look at it this way: You could read a play by Shakespeare and get a superficial understanding of it, but you would understand it on a deeper level if you actually studied it using the tools scholars have given us. And if you read a French novel in English, you would need to go to the original language to really understand it. I know that from having studied French at university. Some translators do a better job than others. If you study the original languages, you can see which are best. And if you can't study the original languages, then read the work of scholars who HAVE studied them.

The reality is that we all come at the text with a certain amount of baggage -- our own beliefs, biases, etc., that can twist our understanding of Scripture. In other words, people can read what they want into it to suit their purposes -- and yes, Christians can be just as guilty of that as non-Christians. But it is a hasty generalization to imply that all Christians do that. Personally, I come at Scripture truly wanting to know what God said -- and I'm not alone in that.

There are other aspects to be considered re: hermeneutics, but those are the basics. You can read more here:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2012 ... erpret.php

I hope what I have written will help people be a little more understanding of why Christians get frustrated by non-Christians (and some Christians!) who are absolutely sure they understand what the Bible says when, too many times, they don't because they are taking it at face value and misunderstanding it simply because they have never learned how to interpret it properly.

The Bible is deep. Hermeneutics provides guidelines which help us get to its deep meanings. The gospel itself (Christ died for our sins to give us eternal life) is simple enough for a child to understand, but if one is going to get to know the Lord more intimately and if one wishes to enter into discipleship with the goal of becoming more Christ-like in his or her service to God and humanity, then it isn't enough to stop with a superficial understanding of Scripture.

I honestly don't know why people think that a religious text should be any different than a text in any other field be it history, philosophy, science, economics, politics, literature, etc. They all require an application of rules and reason to get to the correct meaning. Would you really take any of those other subjects at face value? If not, why insist that you shouldn't have to do any studying to grasp the Bible fully?

[Zzyzx]

.

If bibles in common use cannot be trusted to say what they mean and mean what they say, WHERE are bible believers supposed to learn truth? Not many are linguists fluent in ancient languages.

I think it is decidedly naive to assume that anyone can just pick up a 2,000 year old text written in a time, language, and culture very different from our own and expect to understand it without any aid.

It is naïve to assume that this thread relates to anyone understanding an ancient text written in different language (and time and culture).

Instead, the thread specifically deals with modern bibles written in modern languages (English in this case) supposedly translated by theological experts. When those experts and the religious organizations they represent cannot produce an accurate translation of their basic documents, WHY should their product be trusted?

If an instruction manual written in Japanese for a very complex machine (say an aircraft) and translated into English contains terms that are not translated correctly (or are disputed by translators), can that manual be trusted to operate and maintain the aircraft?

And, historically, Christians have always known this. There have always been members of the Christian community (i.e., pastors and theologians) who could translate and interpret the text for the laity.

Prior to the past few centuries (and the invention of printing) bibles were confined to churches and perhaps a few wealthy people, and were written in foreign languages. Common folk had no access to bibles, were often not literate, and were not fluent in biblical languages.

They were, therefore, dependent upon preachers to tell them what the bible said. Of course, they had no way of knowing whether preachers were truthful or accurate.

Now, however, bibles are ubiquitous in translations to many languages and most people are literate. Therefore, readers should be able to read and understand the bible in their own language. However, if said bibles are not translated accurately they cannot be trusted. Agreed?

That tradition of interpretation continues to be vital to Christianity.

Of course "interpretation continues to be vital to Christianity" because the bible does not make sense and contradicts itself and contradicts what we know of the real world. That requires that bible promoters (professional or amateur) "interpret" it to mean what they say it means.

The profusion of Christian denominations indicates that religious organizations differ (sometimes radically) in their "interpretations."

Even the Reformers, intent on establishing the authority of scripture, cite the early Church fathers, and especially Augustine, at length.

Roman emperors were instrumental in development of "Christian" literature. Their motivations may have been somewhat apart from pure theology.

[Zzyzx]

.
Overcomer,

Thank you for a very thoughtful, well presented, civil post.

I know, ZZyzx, that you believe that, since the Bible is in English and you understand English, then you understand the Bible. However, it really isn't that simple. Every type of literature, Biblical or otherwise, has its own set of rules to be followed if one is to understand and interpret the material correctly and intelligently. The rules of hermeneutics, that is, interpretation of the Bible, are there to help people understand it as fully as possible. Unfortunately, too few people take the time to study them so that they can understand Scripture properly.

Bold added

I do not disagree with much of what you say (and appreciate your insight).

However, the sentence to which I added bold is critical. "Too few people take the time" (or have the ability) to read the bible with the understanding you suggest. What percentage would you guess among "Average Christians" (or Christians who debate here) show indications of that level of understanding? One in a hundred?

In order for any literary work to be useful to its intended audience it must be presented in terms that the audience can understand. An instruction manual for users of an automobile, for example, that is written at the level of advanced engineers is a FAILURE for its intended audience. Someone with good sense in the organization has an obligation to write the manual in ways that can be understood by the auto buyer / operator without requiring an engineering background.

Relating to the bible, perhaps Christian scholars and theologians realize that the miracle tales (including the "resurrection") may be fantasy and that pious fraud is not unknown. However, the vast majority of Christians seem to think the tales are literal truth.

People I have known who attended divinity schools indicate that much of what they learned is NOT shared with the laity or general public.

Where does that leave the typical bible-reading Christian?

[bluethread]

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel"

Why would a creator of all humanity be involved in the politics of a specific nation? And what would that have to do with the rest of us?

If this God's "covenant" is with "The House of Israel", then it has nothing to do with me. I don't see where I have anything to do with "The House of Israel".

The creator would have an interest in the way all nations set policy. He has chosen to set a people apart to be an object lesson for the rest of the world. If you wish to believe that how Adonai deals with His people has nothing to do with you, that is our choice.

And why didn't this God himself see it to that it was properly translated into all languages? If he's so capable of inspiring people to do things and speaking to people from burning bushes and clouds, he should have no problem at all with this trivial task.

No problem, He just has no such obligation.

What do you mean he has no obligation? He most certainly does.

He's supposed to be a God you can TRUST? Have you forgotten that?

He's also supposedly a "Fatherly God" and we are supposed to be his Children.

Where do you get the idea that "we" are supposed to be His children. If you choose not to trust in Him, that is on you.

Would you argue that a mortal man can father children and then just walk away and ignore them because he has no obligation to raising them properly and seeing to it that they have a good and truthful education?

It happens all of the time. That said, I don't know what that has to do with an individual's responsibility to those who are not his children.

I'm sorry Bluethread, but the claim that the Biblical God has "no obligations" to humanity is baloney. In fact, if he's supposed to be the trustworthy dependable Fatherly figure that Christians like to claim he is, then he's got tons of obligations.

He is a trustworthy dependable Fatherly figure to His children.

If you want to God who has no obligations you'd be better off worshiping Zeus. Zeus has no obligations because he's neither trustworthy nor a Fatherly God. Zeus can kill you just because he feels like it and for no other reason.

So, just because Adonai does not provide crystal clear instructions to each and every man in the way each of those men wants it, He is totally untrustworthy? Sorry, that doesn't follow.

The Christian God can't behave like that. The Christian God is supposed to be righteous, and trustworthy. With those characteristics come tons of responsibility. The excuse "God can do anything he wants and is not obligated to anyone or anything" cannot be used in Christianity, because as soon as you make that claim you are simultaneously proclaiming that the Christian God is neither trustworthy, nor righteous.

You can speculate about "the Christian God" all you like, but your speculation does not make it so regarding Adonai.

So yes, the Christian God is under a lot of obligations if he is going to live up to being trustworthy and righteous.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either your God is trustworthy and righteous, or he's not. And to demand that people obey his every command, whilst simultaneously allowing his commands to be completely misunderstood and ambiguous, even contradictory is totally unacceptable?

I'm not sure that I accept your characterization that Adonai's commands are "completely misunderstood and ambiguous, even contradictory". It may be that way for some, but again Adonai is under not obligation to make His ways crystal clear to each and every human being.

Are we supposed to stone our unruly children to death or not?

Are we supposed to bash the babies of our enemies against rock and be happy whilst doing it or not?

Are we supposed to be killing heathens who blaspheme against the word of God or not?

The Old Testament says that we are supposed to be doing these things. And Jesus proclaims that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass.

So exactly how are we supposed to be behaving? Which commandments are we supposed to follow and which ones are we supposed to dismiss as being utterly absurd and immoral?

Again, I am not sure what you mean by "we". You appear to have no interest in being one of Adonai's people, so which ones you choose to follow and which ones you choose to dismiss is up to you.

If there is a God who demands that we must obey his every command, then he most certainly is obligated to make sure that we know precisely what his commands are and what they are not.

Again, that if depends on who "we" are.

So you "God who has no obligations" is a God who is totally untrustworthy, undependable, and irresponsible. There is no excuse for such a lazy complacent God. A God who sends mixed messages. I have no clue what what I'm supposed to be doing to pacify the conflicting contradictory commandment of this mythological God.

Whom are you quoting? I did not say Adonai has no obligations. I said He is not obligated to make His ways crystal clear to each and every human being.

For all I know I should be out bashing someones babies against rocks because they are the children of the enemies of God. And here I am sitting at home trying to stay out of trouble. I'm on my way to hell because I'm not obeying the commandments of our LORD GOD.

And here you are making excuse for this God for not making himself crystal clear proclaiming that he is under no obligation to be crystal clear.

I am not making excused for your LORD GOD. I also have no idea what your LORD GOD expects of you. I believe that I am sufficiently clear on what Adonai expects of me.

I totally disagree. If there's a God who demands that I obey his every commandment without exception then I need to know precisely what those commandments are without any ambiguity at all.

And I don't want to be worshiping the wrong God.

Is Jesus God? Or is Jesus a false prophet who blasphemed againt God just as the Jewish Priest found him guilty of?

Is Allah God? Should I be flying planes into world trade centers?

Or is some other religion entirely the message from God? Maybe I should be worshiping God through Buddhism and listening to the voice of the Dalai Lama as the voice of God?

I have no NO CLUE. And therefore I cannot trust God because he has not made it clear what I am supposed to be doing. The Christian God is especially screwed up in his mixed messages.

It sound like you have already made up your mind. If that is the case, do what you think your LORD GOD requires of you and see how that works out. In the mean time I do not see how that obligates Adonai to make everything crystal clear to you.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]

If God is the creator of all of humanity then God is the Father of all of humanity and all of humanity is his Children.

If you worship some God named Adonai who is not the creator and Father of all humanity, then you do not worship the Biblical God. On the contrary, you must necessarily be a polytheist since you apparently believe that many humans are not the creation of your God "Adonai", and therefore not the children of your God "Adonai". They must have been created by some other God.

I'm really not interested in polytheistic religions. If you believe that you worship a God that is specific to you, then why are you even bothering conversing with me at all? By your own claims your Adonai is not my God, and therefore he's not my creator, nor my Father, nor am I his child. He has nothing to do with me whatsoever.

So why should I care about your Adonai? According to you he has nothing at all to do with me. He can't be my creator because if he's my creator then that automatically makes him my father and I am his child.

[Zzyzx]

.

In a current thread a religionist complains that when opponents take statements from the bible to mean exactly what they say, they are attempting to apply modern usage to ancient texts. Are bibles in general use NOT using (or attempting to use) modern language? Are they written / edited for ancients or for modern people?

Ah, so a "religionist complains that when opponents take statements from the bible to mean exactly what they say, they are attempting to apply modern usage to ancient texts"?

I do not purport to know what religionists mean by their complaints. However, I often encounter their arguments that words in modern bibles do NOT accurately represent ancient texts. Have you somehow NOT encountered the "mistranslation" or "incomplete translation" arguments used in these debates? Do you suggest such arguments are NOT presented?

My response to such "arguments" is that if modern bibles, produced and promoted by religionists and religion organizations, do not accurately represent what was said in their own ancient texts (which many seem to idolize), those modern bibles cannot be trusted to convey the intended meaning.

I, frankly, do not now remember which of the hundreds of posts I read as a debater or as a moderator contained the words I paraphrased. Notice that I did NOT pretend to quote the religionist or to reproduce the words exactly – since it was not essential information in this thread.

We can debate the OP topic "If bibles in common use cannot be trusted to say what they mean and mean what they say, WHERE are bible believers supposed to learn truth? Not many are linguists fluent in ancient languages" without reference to any individual.

[OnceConvinced]

I can't imagine a single solitary Christian being upset by learning that Christianity is totally false. What are they going to be upset about? That it's not true that they were at odds with some God and were responsible for him having to have his only begotten son crucified to pay for their sins? Who in their right mind could be upset to discover that there is absolutely no truth to that tale?

To discover that Christianity is false should be the "BEST NEWS" any Christian could ever hope to hear.

You would think so, wouldn't you? And even now I look back at my own deconversion and wonder why I didn't come to these same conclusions as a Christian.

The reality is, for me anyway, it was a very upsetting thing for me. For around 5 years I actually wallowed in misery regularly over losing my faith and even cryed out regularly to God that he would reach out to me and allow me to believe again. For me it was the loss of something so dear to me, something that had been a huge part of my life for over 30 years. Even though it was becoming more and more obvious to me just what a horrible religion it was and that I'd been blind to those horrors, part of me still wanted to grab back a hold of that thing I loved so much.

Should I be embarrassed about having wanted to be a Christian again during that time? Maybe.

[OnceConvinced]

I think it is decidedly naive to assume that anyone can just pick up a 2,000 year old text written in a time, language, and culture very different from our own and expect to understand it without any aid.

Should we not be able to expect to have English translations that have been accurately translated by those who HAVE studied those languages and become experts at them? Translators who HAVE studied the culture and understand the contexts? Surely God would have deemed all this very important to ensure we got the most accurate translation?

And if it's naïve to assume that the average human can't get accurate translations then why do we have so many Christians who have done their own translations and insist that their take is accurate while the rest of us are wrong? In fact if we go by your argument, wouldn't it be true to say that anyone who claims to have an understanding of scripture is in fact naïve themselves?

[Zzyzx]

.

Should I be embarrassed about having wanted to be a Christian again during that time? Maybe.

As you look back at those years OC, do you feel as though you were gullible or naive to have believed in and trusted the bible (and its proponents / promoters)?

Was childhood indoctrination a major factor in your acceptance (before judgment and discernment had developed as you matured)?

[OnceConvinced]

And why didn't this God himself see it to that it was properly translated into all languages? If he's so capable of inspiring people to do things and speaking to people from burning bushes and clouds, he should have no problem at all with this trivial task.

No problem, He just has no such obligation.

There is this bible promise here:

Philippians 4:19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

Is not one of our needs, an accurate translation of the bible so everyone can read it and understand it and know exactly what God's word says and means? A translation of the bible that is not ambiguous and that cannot be argued with?