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.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 11 by Overcomer]

Sounds like you, Overcomer should then be able to provide a translation of the bible that we in the modern world can read and get the correct picture of. Take all those things into account and you should be able to do it.

If not you, maybe someone else can? Maybe expert translators? If so, why haven't they?

Maybe humans can't do it. So why not God? Was he incapable of producing a modern translation that can be read and the correct picture be expressed to us English speaking people in the 21st century? If not, why not?

It seems even God is incapable of this and even requires a secret decoder called the Holy Spirit because he was unable to produce a decent English translation for the modern man/woman. Even then the Holy Spirit is ineffective, because those who claim to be guided by it can't even agree on what the bible says.

We are in a no-win situation here.

[OnceConvinced]

He is a trustworthy dependable Fatherly figure to His children.

Has this trustworthy and dependable God ensured all HIS children have a reliable properly translated version of the bible?

[OnceConvinced]

.

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)?

Yes, indoctrination was no doubt a key factor. I have questioned why it took me so long to start questioning, because for so long I just accepted without question. Even when a senior church member said something I tended to go along with it. I believe it wasn't until my early 30s when I did a degree that taught me critical thinking skills. Sadly you are not taught to think critically at high school.

[historia]

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).

Allow me to clarify my earlier comment so as to make it clearer:

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

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?

I don't see any reason to believe that modern English translations of the Bible are not 'accurate.' But translating the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text of the Bible into English is just the first step in understanding the text.

You also need to understand the history and cultural context of the texts. Unless you are an expert in both, to understand that, you'll need a historical-critical commentary to aid your reading of the text. And those commentaries will at times point out that the original language of the text includes nuances that are not always fully captured in the English, as is true of any translation.

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?

The Bible is not an instruction manual. It is the sacred text of a religious community. Historically, it has been read and understood within the context of that community and its traditions.

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?

I disagree with your assertion that anyone can just pick up the text and fully understand it without the aid of experts who are familiar with the original languages, history, and culture. That is naive, whether we're talking about the Bible or any other ancient text translated into English.

Certainly, those people can understand it at a certain level, perhaps even to a great degree. But they will miss certain nuances and complexities in the text and translation, which appears to be the very thing you are complaining occurs on these forums. Although I'm not sure how accurate your characterization of the problem actually is, to be honest. You haven't answered bjs' questions above, which cut at the heart of your argument.

[historia]

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?

Sure. But a translation does not, in and of itself, supply the cultural and historical context of the Bible and its authors. A translation can't, in and of itself, explain the various settings, allusions, and references in the text to historical people, places, and events. And no translation can ever fully capture the nuances of the original language.

This is why we have commentaries on the Bible. This is why there is a rich tradition of interpretation of the Bible. This is why most ordained Christian ministers typically complete a three-year graduate degree before they can lead a congregation. And this is why even the most ardent, literalist, conservative Protestants insist that interpretations of the text must conform to the traditional interpretations set out by their churches.

The assumption that, because we have English translations of the texts made by experts, anyone can simply read the text 'straight', without the need for historical-critical commentary, and apparently unencumbered by our own modern Western cultural assumptions, and thereby come to a full and accurate idea of what the text means, is naive.

In so far as you wish to argue that various parts of that last paragraph don't accurately reflect your view, I'm happy to agree with you. But, until shown otherwise, I read all of that into the comments made here.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 25 by historia]

I will agree that some things can't be fully translated, thus the reasons for commentaries, particularly relating to context of the time the writings were done. However, a real problem I see is that Christians have double standards when it comes to this. It applies to the culture at the time when it suits one argument, but it relates to us in the modern age when it comes to another argument.

eg A rape victim must marry her rapist. They will say it was a cultural thing at the time and it was more preferable for a woman to be married to a vile rapist who probably doesn't love her than to never be married at all.

And then you have Jesus telling the people he was talking to that some of them would not taste death until he returned. And Christians will try to say he was talking about a generation 2000 plus years into the future.

There doesn't appear to be any consistency. It seems it's whatever best backs up one's beliefs.

The other real big problem I see, is this whole idea that you need the Holy Spirit to be able to get the correct interpretation of scripture. This leaves many of us in a Catch 22 situation. For many of us we first have to have proof that the bible is true and reliable before we can believe it. But before we can get the correct interpretation of that bible we first have to be filled with the Holy Spirit. But we can't be filled with the holy spirit until we repent and become Christians. However to do that we first have to believe what the bible tells us. But we have no way of knowing whether the bible is accurate and truthful. See the paradox?

[bluethread]

[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.

You are a very presumptuous fellow. Where in the Scriptures does it say that everyone is a child of the Creator? Also, where did I say that many humans were not created by Adonai? The references to sons or children of Adonai are relatively few, so it should be pretty easy to identify what those reference say. So, if you could show me which ones you are referring to, we could test your Universalist claim.

Why am I talking to you? Because this is a forum and what is said is observed by many and you have presented questions that need to be answered. If those answers do not lead where you wish them to go, you are free to respond to them them, as I am doing with your comments.

[bluethread]

He is a trustworthy dependable Fatherly figure to His children.

Has this trustworthy and dependable God ensured all HIS children have a reliable properly translated version of the bible?

Adonai has provided sufficient manuscripts, a remnant of His people and Ruach HaChedosh to guide His people into an understand how they should live.

[bluethread]

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?

This is a salutation in response to the charity provided to him by the Philippians. What Paul is encouraging them by saying that their charity will not lead to their impoverishment, especially since their true need, ie the fulfillment of The Promise. Regarding your concern about a perfect translation, the differences in translation re not really significant in that regard. The differences do have some significance with regard to how His people should then live, but in conjunction with a Torah submissive community and Ruach HaChedosh, one can learn and grow in that understanding.

[bluethread]

.

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.

Yes, I have seen that and have done that myself. In fact, that is what I have done with your post. I quoted you and asked for your sources. This is good and proper exegesis. Should I reject what you have said, because you did not present what was specifically said in posts you can not specifically identify? Yet, you insist that people not believe what is in their bibles, even though their are manuscripts that can be examined to verify what they say.