How much do we need to learn?

[Icey]

Often, when discussing this topic, I've seen people ask questions and the answers seem to be (a lot of the times) something like "Well, the original translation of word ABC is XYZ, and to understand what was meant (in this ancient and dead language) you have to understand LMNOP..."
And while that may be true, how many of us, as a society, understand said dead language (much less fluent in it) to be able to understand an apparent poorly translated writing?
Moreover, is it our responsibility to learn another ancient, many times dead, language that was spoken centuries ago to make sense of what we're reading?
There's being lazy, but there's also using common sense.
Why would a god (God if you want) not be able to provide direct translations to such 'important' teachings? Why can't he allow a more accurate translation AND MEANING to something that people say is so important to know?
Let's say God is lazy and doesn't want to provide a direct translation of word and meaning; surely he can provide that knowledge to the leaders of his church, right?
Or is he expecting us to learn a whole new language, study it and become near expert level, for him to get his ideas across?
Why do we have to know another language to know god and be able to better understand him?

[PinSeeker]

Your verbal tap dancing here (regarding Philippians 3:8) doesn't impress.

Who cares about impressing anybody, Miles? Certainly not me. I'm just trying to get you to understand something you clearly don't... or are deliberately mangling and/or misrepresenting. Question: In Philippians 3:8, what do you think the antecedent of 'them' is?

Then obviously you've forgotten who brought up the idea of the synonym. You: "Do you know what a synonym is?" (post#5) Implying, of course, that the various terms are synonyms for one another.

Right. They are. If used in the right context. Like I said, if you want to mangle the text, you will. And that's what you have been and continue to do.

Have a good day.

I always do. You to, my friend. Grace and peace to you.

[Miles]

Your verbal tap dancing here (regarding Philippians 3:8) doesn't impress.

Who cares about impressing anybody, Miles? Certainly not me.

Then your tap dancing has really been a waste.

Question: In Philippians 3:8, what do you think the antecedent of 'them' is?

According to the Bible I quoted, The Lexham English Bible, its "all things to be loss."

Philippians 3:7-8
"7 But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have considered loss because of Christ. 8 More than that, I even consider all things to be loss because of the surpassing greatness of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for the sake of whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and consider them dung . . . .

Now what?

Then obviously you've forgotten who brought up the idea of the synonym. You: "Do you know what a synonym is?" (post#5) Implying, of course, that the various terms are synonyms for one another.

Right. They are. If used in the right context. Like I said, if you want to mangle the text, you will. And that's what you have been and continue to do.

I await your evidence of my mangling any text. Here, I'll even help you out.

This is the text Miles mangled._________________________________________________________________ .

And this is how he mangled it. _________________________________________________________________ .

.

[PinSeeker]

Your verbal tap dancing here (regarding Philippians 3:8) doesn't impress.

Who cares about impressing anybody, Miles? Certainly not me.

Then your tap dancing has really been a waste.

I don't "tap dance." I waltz. And I'm very up-front about it.

Question: In Philippians 3:8, what do you think the antecedent of 'them' is?

According to the Bible I quoted, The Lexham English Bible, its "all things to be loss."

Fantastic! Congratulations! That's right, but then what do you think Paul's "all things" refers to?

Now what?

I'm actually hoping you can resolve that question for yourself.

Then obviously you've forgotten who brought up the idea of the synonym. You: "Do you know what a synonym is?" (post#5) Implying, of course, that the various terms are synonyms for one another.

Right. They are. If used in the right context. Like I said, if you want to mangle the text, you will. And that's what you have been and continue to do.

I await your evidence of my mangling any text.

See above. And if you're actually honest about it, you'll unmangle it yourself. And that would be splendid.

Grace and peace to you.

[Miles]

Question: In Philippians 3:8, what do you think the antecedent of 'them' is?

According to the Bible I quoted, The Lexham English Bible, its "all things to be loss."

Fantastic! Congratulations! That's right, but then what do you think Paul's "all things" refers to?

Nah, you only got one chance to address that issue and you already took it.

Now what?

I'm actually hoping you can resolve that question for yourself.

Nope. It's your issue. YOU address it.

Then obviously you've forgotten who brought up the idea of the synonym. You: "Do you know what a synonym is?" (post#5) Implying, of course, that the various terms are synonyms for one another.

Right. They are. If used in the right context. Like I said, if you want to mangle the text, you will. And that's what you have been and continue to do.

I await your evidence of my mangling any text.

See above. And if you're actually honest about it, you'll unmangle it yourself. And that would be splendid.

You Just love sliding your responsibilities onto others don't you, particularly when they put you in a corner. Of course you do. But, again, Nope! You don't get to claim I mangled text, and then walk way from your accusation without being called on it. So folks,. . . . . the only logical conclusion here is that PinSeeker has NO evidence that I mangled any text, but used the accusation to discredit me. Not a nice thing to do PinSeeker. Not nice at all.

Please try to play fair here. It will be appreciated.


.

[PinSeeker]

You Just love sliding your responsibilities onto others...

Just trying to get you to correct yourself. You know, with a little prodding. You would learn more that way. Maybe you already have and just refuse to admit it due to lack of humility.

Again, grace and peace to you.

[Miles]

You Just love sliding your responsibilities onto others...

Just trying to get you to correct yourself. You know, with a little prodding. You would learn more that way. Maybe you already have and just refuse to admit it due to lack of humility.

Have a good day. I certainly am.


.

[PinSeeker]

Have a good day. I certainly am.

Sounds to me like you're either trying to fool me, or fooling yourself, or both. So angry, it seems. But grace and peace to you all the same.

[2timothy316]

Often, when discussing this topic, I've seen people ask questions and the answers seem to be (a lot of the times) something like "Well, the original translation of word ABC is XYZ, and to understand what was meant (in this ancient and dead language) you have to understand LMNOP..."
And while that may be true, how many of us, as a society, understand said dead language (much less fluent in it) to be able to understand an apparent poorly translated writing?
Moreover, is it our responsibility to learn another ancient, many times dead, language that was spoken centuries ago to make sense of what we're reading?
There's being lazy, but there's also using common sense.
Why would a god (God if you want) not be able to provide direct translations to such 'important' teachings? Why can't he allow a more accurate translation AND MEANING to something that people say is so important to know?
Let's say God is lazy and doesn't want to provide a direct translation of word and meaning; surely he can provide that knowledge to the leaders of his church, right?
Or is he expecting us to learn a whole new language, study it and become near expert level, for him to get his ideas across?
Why do we have to know another language to know god and be able to better understand him?

I don't think we have to know an entire language to understand Jehovah better. It can help in some areas to get some details of a teaching better.

Example:
Matthew 6:5,6 says, "But when you pray, go into your private room and, after shutting your door, pray to your Father who is in secret. Then your Father who looks on in secret will repay you. Also, when you pray, do not act like the hypocrites, for they like to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the main streets to be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full."

The Greek term a·peʹkho, meaning “to have in full,” appeared on business receipts in Jesus' day. Having this knowledge of the Greek word doesn't change the principle that Jesus stated. It is obviously better to receive a reward from God rather than appearing to be righteous in front of others. Yet, knowing that a·peʹkho was found on receipts does give a picture of one man being blessed by God as their reward and another just holding a piece of paper as his reward.

Jehovah is not lazy. Jehovah's Witnesses have an excellent study Bible online. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt ... y=discover
In fact the information I just gave you came from that study Bible. Use it as much as you like. Especially when a person gives you a scripture and they are trying to tell that ABC = XYZ. Sometimes ABC = ABC. If it means something different allow the Bible to tell you what it means.

Example:
Question: What is the Lake of Fire found in Revelation 20:14,15? "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death."
Answer: Nothingness or non-existence. How do we know this? The Bible tells us at 1 Corinthians 15:26 that 'death' is to be 'brought to nothing.' So when Revelation says that death is to be hurled into the Lake of Fire the Bible interprets itself and tells us that the Lake of Fire is where things go that are completely erased. The Lake of Fire therefore is a symbolic term and not literal. This will apply to everything thrown into the Lake of Fire, which means if its thrown into the lake of Fire then it is 'brought to nothing'.

The Bible can explain what ABC means when ABC needs to be explained as XYZ.

[Overcomer]

How much do you need to learn to understand the history of Russia, the works of William Shakespeare, genetics, mathematics, economics, agriculture, zoology, etc., etc., etc.? If you want to understand something well and become an expert in the field, then you study and study and study. If you only want to know a little, then you learn that little and move on to another topic.

The Bible is no different. If it means a lot to you to understand it well and deeply, and to intelligently discuss it with others, then you do the homework needed. If it is something you only have a passing interest in, then you do as little or as much as you feel like doing, and don't worry about understanding it inside and out.