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 1 by Zzyzx]

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.

Did you know that there are two types of Bibles? The Translation which implies an attempt to give a literal translation and a Version which takes some, shall we say, creative liberties? It tries to capture the meaning of the words rather than the literal comparison.

To one person a cloak may be red and to another it may be scarlet. It may not be clear what color it is under certain circumstances, in the dark, or when wet.

Think of a word in the English language that has more than one meaning, often in stark contrast and especially changing over time. You have to have an open mind to all of this when interpreting the Bible.

Often, though, I have found that there isn't as much in many cases that are as problematic as the skeptic will claim. For example, the Hebrew term yohm, translated day and the six days of creation. The heavens and earth weren't created in six literal days, as has been thought. But even when giving a definition of the modern English word day as also being "a particular period of the past; an era" and demonstrating that the term day is used 3 different ways in the brief creation account alone, as well as the fact that the seventh day continues up to this day, thousands of years after it began, skeptics still have a hard time accepting anything other than a strictly literal, face value, traditional interpretation.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

It is not only “skeptics� who recognize that “shifting definitions� hinder communication.

Its a language issue, isn't it?

I see it as an integrity issue – a willingness to butcher the language to defend a favorite position. That is a common tactic used by Apologists in these debates (and elsewhere). If the common-use definitions of words do not suit the religious argument, change the Bible's words to whatever fits the occasion – then perhaps switch back or to a different word for another argument.

I have been observing the situation here for nearly ten years and note that “Skeptics� do not tend to use word play but quote the exact words from the Bible. Apologists respond with a re-translation, re-definition and claim “That is what the Bible really means� OR "Don't take it literally (but do take other things literally).

If the Bible does not say what it means and mean what it says how can it be considered a valid source of information?

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.

Some people are more inclined to thinking in prescribed ways / patterns than others. Those who do not follow thought paths of others are often labeled freethinkers (a person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition, especially a person whose religious opinions differ from established belief.)

Did you know that there are two types of Bibles?

That is an example of thinking in a peculiar fashion.

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?

Often, though, I have found that there isn't as much in many cases that are as problematic as the skeptic will claim.

Since there are a dozen or so different “interpretations� of the word “evil� how can it NOT be a problem to determine “what the Bible really means� – whether one is a Believer or a Skeptic? Do Believers have some sort of magic knowledge?

[Divine Insight]

If the Bible does not say what it means and mean what it says how can it be considered a valid source of information?

Exactly.

Not only that, but if I have to push my interpretations onto the Bible then I am free to make it say whatever I choose. The Bible (and every character in it) becomes nothing more than a "Marionette Doll" that I can manipulate to make them say whatever I want them to say.

There's hardly any "God" behind that. In fact, in that situation I "become" the voice of God since I am the Marionette Puppeteer, and both Jesus and Yahweh become my marionette puppets.

In fact, as far as I'm concerned this is precisely what Christianity is. Christian theists and apologists are nothing more than Marionette Puppeteers pulling their strings to make Jesus and Yahweh agree with whatever opinions they care to preach.

Unfortunately they seem to have the masses mesmerized with their puppeteering acts. But they can't fool the "Skeptics" so they try to make out like there is something "wrong" with the skeptics for not falling for their marionette show.

I just came from another thread where a theist is making the apologetic argument that "Beaten with many stripes" is not be taken literally.

Well duh? If it wasn't meant to be taken literally then why was it ever stated this way in the first place? Why not just say what is meant?

Christian apologetics amounts to nothing more than a total rejection of the literal Bible whilst pretending that it can still be held up as the authoritative "Word of God", by simply ignoring what it actually says and pretending that it had actually said something entirely different.

It's a religion that has already literally rejected its own dogma centuries ago. And today it's just coasting along pretending to be something entirely different from what the Bible literally says.

[The Tanager]

I see it as an integrity issue – a willingness to butcher the language to defend a favorite position. That is a common tactic used by Apologists in these debates (and elsewhere). If the common-use definitions of words do not suit the religious argument, change the Bible's words to whatever fits the occasion – then perhaps switch back or to a different word for another argument.

I have been observing the situation here for nearly ten years and note that “Skeptics� do not tend to use word play but quote the exact words from the Bible. Apologists respond with a re-translation, re-definition and claim “That is what the Bible really means� OR "Don't take it literally (but do take other things literally).

If the Bible does not say what it means and mean what it says how can it be considered a valid source of information?

I agree with you that many people do this, but it is not just limited to religious 'apologists.' 'Skeptics' can be guilty of it, too. Are there numerous historical uses of a word?...some Christians will use the senses that fit their point because they want it to and claim the skeptic is using the wrong sense and some skeptics will use the sense that fits their skepticism because they want it to and claim the apologist is shifting the definition. Some Christians genuinely think the context, etc. means the word means such-and-such and some skeptics genuinely think the word clearly means so-and-so because of context, etc. There are both kinds of people on 'both' sides. There is validity to the more sophisticated approach of the latter Christians and Skeptics because words mean different things. It's not enough to "quote the exact words from the Bible" because words have different meanings across historical periods as well as within the same historical period. Add on to that translations from one conventional language to another and there is absolutely warrant for discussion over different meanings of words.

[marco]

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.

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.

[David Henson]

[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?

[David Henson]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Not only that, but if I have to push my interpretations onto the Bible then I am free to make it say whatever I choose. The Bible (and every character in it) becomes nothing more than a "Marionette Doll" that I can manipulate to make them say whatever I want them to say.

Could you demonstrate this, please?

In fact, as far as I'm concerned this is precisely what Christianity is. Christian theists and apologists are nothing more than Marionette Puppeteers pulling their strings to make Jesus and Yahweh agree with whatever opinions they care to preach.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. Deus Ex Machina, However, such a criticism of theology or Christianity shouldn't be equated with a valid criticism of Jehovah. It isn't his fault.

[David Henson]

[Replying to post 3 by Zzyzx]

It is not only “skeptics� who recognize that “shifting definitions� hinder communication.

If words have a similar definition it isn't shifting it is enhancing and broadening. Because:

1. The meanings of words change. Hell in King James time meant to cover, for example, a heller of books was the person who put the cover on, to hel a home meant to cover a portion in tile, to hell potatoes meant to cover them with dirt or put them in a cellar. Going to hell meant you were dead and buried. Simlar words from the same root mean the same thing. Shell, hall, heal the covering of a wound, hill, hull the covering of a nut or part of a ship, even whole meant an uncovering.

Fowl meant any winged creature, like a chicken, turkey, bird, insect or butterfly. Shambles meant a meat market, cattle meant any livestock, such as cows, sheep, pigs, etc.

2. Words have similar meanings and meanings have different words. The word god means an upper balcony in a theater or the people sitting there, an idol, a deity, a powerful person or a leader, gay can mean homosexual or happy, etc.

3. Languages use different ways to convey thought.

If the Bible does not say what it means and mean what it says how can it be considered a valid source of information?

It is, after all, words. Language. You face the same difficulties in everyday life. In this discussion. Only it is maybe complicated by religiosity. Reading something in it that isn't there or not reading it contextually.

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 . . .

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Not only that, but if I have to push my interpretations onto the Bible then I am free to make it say whatever I choose. The Bible (and every character in it) becomes nothing more than a "Marionette Doll" that I can manipulate to make them say whatever I want them to say.

Could you demonstrate this, please?

Well, if the Bible is open to interpretation, which it necessarily must be unless a person is claiming to be a hard-core literalist, Then the Yahweh and Jesus that I "create" via my interpretations are going to be saying totally different things that the Yahweh and Jesus that you "create" via your interpretations.

For example, I can easily use the New Testament Gospels to demonstrate using "Words attributed to Jesus" that; 1. Jesus himself tells me that it unimportant whether I believe in him or in his words (John 12:47-48); 2. I am totally capable of assuring my own salvation (Luke 6:37): 3. And that 99% of all people obtain their entrance into heaven via their own righteousness (Luke 15:4-7)

This is what "My Jesus Marionette Doll" has to say when he's siting on my lap. And all I am doing is having him say verses of scriptural quotes attributed to Jesus.

So now if you have "Your Jesus Marionette Doll" that is sitting on your lap refute my Marionette Jesus Doll, by having your Doll quoting seemingly contradictory scriptures, then all I need to say to you is, 'I don't interpret those scriptures in the same way you do. In fact, I can even argue that since the verses you quoted clearly "contradict" the verse I quoted then the verses you've quoted necessarily need to be "interpreted" to mean something other than what you think they mean because otherwise Jesus would be contradicting himself and we can't have that.

In other words, as "Christians", you and I can create two entirely different Jesus Marionette Dolls and have them supporting entirely opposite claims by simply trying for force our own personal interpretations on to the Scriptures.

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. This is why there are so many disagreeing sects of Christianity. You said yourself that you have chosen Jehovah's Witness as a denomiation to support because it suits your personal beliefs of what you think a "correct version of Christianity" should be. (i.e. rejecting all so-called "Pagan Influences), but even that is nothing more than a subjective opinion on your part.

In fact, as far as I'm concerned this is precisely what Christianity is. Christian theists and apologists are nothing more than Marionette Puppeteers pulling their strings to make Jesus and Yahweh agree with whatever opinions they care to preach.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. Deus Ex Machina, However, such a criticism of theology or Christianity shouldn't be equated with a valid criticism of Jehovah. It isn't his fault.

If there is a God named Jehovah who is associated with the Bible he is the only one who can be responsible for the gross failure of his message to humanity.

Not only has his message become extremely confused and fragmented between the original Judaism, then the off-shoot of Christianity, and finally the off-shoot of Islam, but all of those major factions have become nothing more than disagreeing sects that all have different ideas of what this God expects from anyone.

This massive confusion could be the "fault" of no one but this God if he existed.

Jehovah is the only omniscient and omnipotent entity who could do anything to fix the confusing he created. No mortal human could be blamed for this "God's Word" to have become a totally incoherent mess than even the theologians and clergy who are trying to worship this God can't make heads or tails of.

No one could be responsible for Jehovah's failure to clearly communicate with the objects of his own creation but Jehovah himself.

Moreover, the idea that a creator of the entire Earth and all the humans on it would attempt to communicate with them through a single barbaric culture is an idea that isn't even worthy of consideration.

In short, the very notion of this Biblical picture of a God who only interacted with the Israelites and no one else is basically proof positive that this religion is nothing more than a mythology specific to a very specific culture. A culture that was so arrogant they even claimed that they were the 'Chosen People' of the Creator of the Universe.

Just stop for a moment and think about how utterly silly that is. That alone should be more than sufficient to cause you to close your Bible and place it on the shelf marked "Hebrew Mythology".