Who holds the responsibility?

[nobspeople]

There are discussion here (and elsewhere) about cultural significance of certain things and what words meant in the days of Jesus verses now. And, from what I can see, they are legitimate discussions that will further enhance one's understanding of things being discussed.

That said, if there are enough cultural differences in 'Jesus's days' to what words spoken meant then compared to now, whose responsibility is it to communicate that information?

I mean, if 'cheating' means something different then than it does now (be it from the word's definition and its changes or the cultural influences of the time), is it the reader's chore to research that or those that edited the bible for current distribution?

And why?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

I think it's the reader's responsibility whether that text is the Bible or anything else. Texts are written by people who live in a particular culture with particular questions on their mind (whether divine inspiration is true of the Bible or not). People who heavily study a text then write texts about them from their own particular culture and experience, while leaving the texts being commented on as is. I think that is right, whether talking about the Bible or The Iliad or the Caesars or whatever. So, it's not like there isn't help out there.

If one wants to form beliefs on various texts, it is primarily their responsibility to make sure they are understanding it, whether that is through research on their own or dialoguing and learning from people who have done the research. And just like every discipline, every text, you'll have people researching it and coming to different conclusions. Disagreement could be due to cultural differences, misunderstandings of the text, no matter what the author claims about the Bible (or whatever text) supporting their point. That's why the reader should read widely, from many different perspectives, analyze the actual argumentation for individual's interpretations and arguments, and always keep an open mind.

[William]

...One has to realize that 'the problem' according to those Christians who disagree with other Christians is not because the other Christians don't "read and accept it all" but because the Bible itself needs to be interpreted.

Why it must be interpreted?

Because that is the style in which a lot of it is written. It leaves itself open to interpretation.

Why it is not enough to let the Bible explain what it really means?

Because the Bible does not explain what it really means. It is a book. An inanimate object which cannot explain what it really means.

Should I also begin to interpret your sayings the same way people interpret the Bible?

It depends upon whether these supposed 'sayings' leave opening for interpretation. Do you have an example?

[Miles]

.


The end responsibility rests with those who translated the writings and put them into English, or French, or German, or whatever language. They have the responsibility of conveying the original meaning of a word, term, or verse to those who will be reading them. To say that anyone else has some responsibility to ferret out the original meaning of a word, or whatever, is to imply that those with the scholarly means and education weren't bright enough to do so, or chose not to do so.

And, if people insist on looking at the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek meaning of a particular word in their Bible so as to divine the correct English (for example) meaning is to suggest the meaning as it reads in their language is incorrect, and that they have better ability to do translate it than did the scholars and translators who put their Bible together. To me this is asinine. One has to assume that the scholars who put the Bible together were astute enough to consider all the factors that went into a scribe's decision to use this word rather than that word, including the culture of the time. However, in as much as we no longer have the original manuscripts to refer to it's sometimes a crap shoot, which is why some words in the Bible have quite a few different translations, such as σκύβαλον in Philippians 3:8, which has been translated to mean:

"refuse"
"garbage"
"rubbish"
"filth"
"dung"
"trash"
"worthless"
"less than nothing"
"manure"
"waste"
"dirt"
"sewer trash"

Or חוּל in Psalm 10:5 which has been translated as:

"Grievous"
"Firm"
"Prosper"
"Secure"
"Twisted"
"Successful"
"Succeed"
"Prosperous"
"Endure"
"Well"
"Defouled"
"Pain"

All of which demonstrates why the Bible is a poor source for truth. When the best in their fields can't agree on the meaning of its words what chance does anyone else have? None!


.

[The Tanager]

The end responsibility rests with those who translated the writings and put them into English, or French, or German, or whatever language. They have the responsibility of conveying the original meaning of a word, term, or verse to those who will be reading them. To say that anyone else has some responsibility to ferret out the original meaning of a word, or whatever, is to imply that those with the scholarly means and education weren't bright enough to do so, or chose not to do so.

Languages do not always have one-to-one correspondence. Words are complex, changing things. Some translators try to translate as literally as possible, some try to translate concepts. Even scholars will make mistakes, perhaps misunderstanding the culture of the time or let their bias come into a translation. Just like in any field, there can be scholarly disagreement and one shouldn't just trust one translator.

However, in as much as we no longer have the original manuscripts to refer to it's sometimes a crap shoot, which is why some words in the Bible have quite a few different translations,

While we don't have the original manuscripts, it's far from a crapshoot. Scholars generally agree on what we have now being the original in most places. There are some places that have a different reading (which most translations will note) but they don't change doctrine.

such as σκύβαλον in Philippians 3:8, which has been translated to mean:


"refuse"
"garbage"
"rubbish"
"filth"
"dung"
"trash"
"worthless"
"less than nothing"
"manure"
"waste"
"dirt"
"sewer trash"

What difference would it make to use one of these terms rather than the others?

Or חוּל in Psalm 10:5 which has been translated as:


"Grievous"
"Firm"
"Prosper"
"Secure"
"Twisted"
"Successful"
"Succeed"
"Prosperous"
"Endure"
"Well"
"Defouled"
"Pain"

This term has various meanings: to twist, to whirl, to dance, to writhe, be pained, to be born. Context comes into translation of words. Is the message of the passage really changed by using one of these rather than the other? I don't see how.

[1213]

...One has to realize that 'the problem' according to those Christians who disagree with other Christians is not because the other Christians don't "read and accept it all" but because the Bible itself needs to be interpreted.

Why it must be interpreted?

Because that is the style in which a lot of it is written. It leaves itself open to interpretation.
...

Please give one example.

[William]

...One has to realize that 'the problem' according to those Christians who disagree with other Christians is not because the other Christians don't "read and accept it all" but because the Bible itself needs to be interpreted.

Why it must be interpreted?

Because that is the style in which a lot of it is written. It leaves itself open to interpretation.
...

Please give one example.

I could give many more than one example. I think the more appropriate thing to do would be to point to the way Christians argue among themselves as to how best to interpret the bible. Therein is the example. It has been that way for 2000 years so one is safe to assume it isn't going to change any time soon.

[Purple Knight]

I mean, if 'cheating' means something different then than it does now (be it from the word's definition and its changes or the cultural influences of the time), is it the reader's chore to research that or those that edited the bible for current distribution?

My opinion is that if the knowledge is there, if you can possibly obtain it by reasonable means (that is to say, searching and not luck), it's your obligation to go and get it.

But if all the knowledge is laid out on the table and there's still disagreement from the top people, that certainly counts as needing luck to select the correct interpretation.

My thread on morality being a guessing game:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=38210

[Miles]

The end responsibility rests with those who translated the writings and put them into English, or French, or German, or whatever language. They have the responsibility of conveying the original meaning of a word, term, or verse to those who will be reading them. To say that anyone else has some responsibility to ferret out the original meaning of a word, or whatever, is to imply that those with the scholarly means and education weren't bright enough to do so, or chose not to do so.

Languages do not always have one-to-one correspondence. Words are complex, changing things. Some translators try to translate as literally as possible, some try to translate concepts. Even scholars will make mistakes, perhaps misunderstanding the culture of the time or let their bias come into a translation. Just like in any field, there can be scholarly disagreement and one shouldn't just trust one translator.

A good translator will always try to pass along the intended meaning of a word, term, or concept.

However, in as much as we no longer have the original manuscripts to refer to it's sometimes a crap shoot, which is why some words in the Bible have quite a few different translations,

While we don't have the original manuscripts, it's far from a crapshoot. Scholars generally agree on what we have now being the original in most places. There are some places that have a different reading (which most translations will note) but they don't change doctrine.

Scholars do indeed generally agree on the translation of a word, etc, but often times they don't, which is why we get such atrocious variations as those appearing in the two examples I gave concerning σκύβαλον in Philippians 3:8, and חוּל in Psalm 10:5. In Philippians 3:8 "dirt" is nothing like "less than nothing," nor is "grievous" anywhere like "successful" in Psalm 10:5..... NOR are the 13 different renderings of רַע in Isaiah 45:7 all synonyms. In fact, like the others, they too give quite different impressions of what is meant, from "evil" to "bad times." "Evil" and "bad times" are not synonyms.

KJV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

NLT
I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the Lord, am the one who does these things.

such as σκύβαλον in Philippians 3:8, which has been translated to mean:

"refuse"
"garbage"
"rubbish"
"filth"
"dung"
"trash"
"worthless"
"less than nothing"
"manure"
"waste"
"dirt"
"sewer trash"

What difference would it make to use one of these terms rather than the others?

Do you mean to say that "less than nothing" is a synonym for "sewer trash"?

Or חוּל in Psalm 10:5 which has been translated as:


"Grievous"
"Firm"
"Prosper"
"Secure"
"Twisted"
"Successful"
"Succeed"
"Prosperous"
"Endure"
"Well"
"Defouled"
"Pain"

This term has various meanings: to twist, to whirl, to dance, to writhe, be pained, to be born. Context comes into translation of words. Is the message of the passage really changed by using one of these rather than the other? I don't see how.

If I pick up my 21st Century King James Version and read

"His ways are always grievous; Thy judgments are far above, out of his sight; as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them."

griev·ous
/ˈɡrēvəs/
adjective: grievous
(of something bad) very severe or serious.


And my neighbor picks up his New King James Version and reads

His ways are always prospering; Your judgments are far above, out of his sight; As for all his enemies, he sneers at them

pros·per
/ˈpräspər/
verb: gerund or present participle: prospering
succeed in material terms; be financially successful.
flourish physically; grow strong and healthy.


And our other neighbor picks up his Holman Christian Standard Bible and reads:

His ways are always secure; Your lofty judgments are beyond his sight; he scoffs at all his adversaries.[/quote]

secure adjective
se·​cure | \ si-ˈkyu̇r
, -ˈkyər \
1a : free from danger
b : affording safety a secure hideaway
c : trustworthy, dependable
2a: easy in mind : confident
b : assured in opinion or expectation : having no doubt



Do you think we're all getting the same message?




.

[Paul of Tarsus]

There are discussion here (and elsewhere) about cultural significance of certain things and what words meant in the days of Jesus verses now. And, from what I can see, they are legitimate discussions that will further enhance one's understanding of things being discussed.

That said, if there are enough cultural differences in 'Jesus's days' to what words spoken meant then compared to now, whose responsibility is it to communicate that information?

I mean, if 'cheating' means something different then than it does now (be it from the word's definition and its changes or the cultural influences of the time), is it the reader's chore to research that or those that edited the bible for current distribution?

And why?

I'd say that it's the responsibility of Bible scholars to ensure that Bible translations accurately reflect in the vernacular what was meant in the original languages. Unfortunately, doing so can be tricky because of the differences in the languages, the times, and the cultures.

So what can the reader do to overcome these difficulties? One option is to use a Bible version that has a reputation for accuracy. I understand that the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV) has a good reputation for accuracy. You can also study Greek and Hebrew, and if that's not practical, then use an interlinear Bible to see the vernacular and the original language side-by-side.

Finally, it's important to understand that all languages are burdened with ambiguity, and writers often fail to clarify their messages. So sometimes you need to "reason out" what you read in the Bible the best way you can.

[The Tanager]

Scholars do indeed generally agree on the translation of a word, etc, but often times they don't, which is why we get such atrocious variations as those appearing in the two examples I gave concerning σκύβαλον in Philippians 3:8, and חוּל in Psalm 10:5. In Philippians 3:8 "dirt" is nothing like "less than nothing,"

Calling someone "dirt" or "a piece of dirt" is a common idiom that is equivalent to calling them "less than nothing."

nor is "grievous" anywhere like "successful" in Psalm 10:5

What does "get" mean? You can procure something (food), become something (get scared), understand something (I get it). There are various English words that have held quite different meanings. Nice used to mean silly or foolish or simple. Awful used to mean being worthy of awe. Fathom used to mean to encircle with one's arms, but can now mean getting to the bottom of things after much thought. Languages are full of this kind of stuff.

Context is very important. Translating the term as "grevious" versus "successful" does not change the meaning of the passage. The psalmist questions why God is hidden while the wicked succeeds. The psalmist is grieved at the success of the wicked. This Hebrew word has a depth of meaning that leads different translators to translate both ways, taking the context of the passage into account. If one takes the context into account, then we all would get the same message.