Ye Religion Thread

[QuakeDuke]

My macro point is that you still DO use your own interpretations, and when seemingly in conflict with another verse there must be a choice made of which one to take literally and which not to. You don't think the earth is a "circle". 

And we haven't even touched on the verses that suggest the sun orbits Earth and Earth doesn't move. 

All in all you seem to insist on literal interpretation, yet you don't even give a literal interpretation of the verses you are using. I can support all I have given with a literal translation/interpretation from the original languages, which is often in conflict with many modern and not so modern "translations" for many different reasons, some of which have been given in other dialogs I have in this thread.

It would therefore seem to me you are more interested in why I must be wrong in whatever I say than in actually carrying on a respectful dialog. I will be willing to dialog if you can carry on one without telling me what "I" am doing, what "I" think and why "I" am doing it . Otherwise....

QD

[QuakeDuke]

Reminds me of the discussion between Hiro and the Librarian from Snow Crash. 

A book which I thoroughly enjoyed.

QD

[quadz]

Perhaps another good analogy for what I've seen happen would be when one of our government officials speaks on TV. After their speech, we get to sit and listen to some talking head tell us what they "really" meant. Now, we've sat and listened, heard exactly what the official said for ourselves, yet many choose to believe what they hear from the talking heads in spite of having just heard the official speak.

Indeed.

[.]

That's kind of my point, though... It seems most anything in the Bible requires interpretation, and as such it seems odd when some folks are just certain that their particular interpretation must be the correct one.

I dated a gentleman once, who was a former Jehovahs Witness.  He explained to me, the fundamental beliefs all boiled down to a placement of a comma in a passage, (Luke 23:43, I believe). "You mean to tell me, the basis of your religion comes down to a comma?" I found that just plain weird, but perhaps a perfect example of why I do not hold scripture as 'gospel.' How I interpret the words compared to the next, who is to say either of us is wrong? I could, if I choose, find passages to support an argument of how I think I should live. I remember when I was younger, I opened up to a page, where I read something along the lines, 'it is better to worship me in private than where everyone can see you.' I wish I could remember where I read that, but immediately a light bulb went off in my head, because that is opposite of how this predominantly Catholic community conducts themselves. To them it is most important to be seen at church by your peers and then you are allowed to walk with your head high proud and act as if you are holier than thou; you are looked favorably upon despite whatever wrongdoings or hypocrisies you may have performed.  You are defined by the church you attend, not by your relationship with spirituality. I was defined, judged, just because I ate meat during the Lenten fast. 

[ReCycled]

That's kind of my point, though... It seems most anything in the Bible requires interpretation, and as such it seems odd when some folks are just certain that their particular interpretation must be the correct one.

'it is better to worship me in private than where everyone can see you.' I wish I could remember where I read that, but immediately a light bulb went off in my head, because that is opposite of how this predominantly Catholic community conducts themselves. To them it is most important to be seen at church by your peers'

[DaHanG]

My macro point is that you still DO use your own interpretations, and when seemingly in conflict with another verse there must be a choice made of which one to take literally and which not to. You don't think the earth is a "circle". 

And we haven't even touched on the verses that suggest the sun orbits Earth and Earth doesn't move. 

All in all you seem to insist on literal interpretation, yet you don't even give a literal interpretation of the verses you are using. I can support all I have given with a literal translation/interpretation from the original languages, which is often in conflict with many modern and not so modern "translations" for many different reasons, some of which have been given in other dialogs I have in this thread.

It would therefore seem to me you are more interested in why I must be wrong in whatever I say than in actually carrying on a respectful dialog. I will be willing to dialog if you can carry on one without telling me what "I" am doing, what "I" think and why "I" am doing it . Otherwise....

QD

Going back to the beginning, you said the Bible "taught" certain things about the earth. I said what you say the Bible teaches is still your interpretation of it, nothing more. I don't think I've gone very far beyond that.

DHG

[QuakeDuke]

My macro point is that you still DO use your own interpretations, and when seemingly in conflict with another verse there must be a choice made of which one to take literally and which not to. You don't think the earth is a "circle". 

And we haven't even touched on the verses that suggest the sun orbits Earth and Earth doesn't move. 

All in all you seem to insist on literal interpretation, yet you don't even give a literal interpretation of the verses you are using. I can support all I have given with a literal translation/interpretation from the original languages, which is often in conflict with many modern and not so modern "translations" for many different reasons, some of which have been given in other dialogs I have in this thread.

It would therefore seem to me you are more interested in why I must be wrong in whatever I say than in actually carrying on a respectful dialog. I will be willing to dialog if you can carry on one without telling me what "I" am doing, what "I" think and why "I" am doing it . Otherwise....

QD

Going back to the beginning, you said the Bible "taught" certain things about the earth. I said what you say the Bible teaches is still your interpretation of it, nothing more. I don't think I've gone very far beyond that.

DHG

Ok. One more time then. If I give you the LITERAL language translation from Greek - Hebrew - Chaldean to English, how is that MY interpretation if I am using the world wide accepted meanings for those words?

QD

[quadz]

If I give you the LITERAL language translation from Greek - Hebrew - Chaldean to English, how is that MY interpretation if I am using the world wide accepted meanings for those words?

I can't speak for DaHanG, but if I've understood his point: Suppose the original language makes reference to the earth being like a circle.

If one is inclined to believe the earth is flat, then it seems likely one might interpret 'like a circle' to mean the earth is disc shaped.

But if one is inclined to believe the earth is spherical, then one might make the leap from 'circle' to 'sphere'.

But: circle -> disc, or circle -> sphere, are both interpretations of the original.


Regards,

quadz

[QuakeDuke]

If I give you the LITERAL language translation from Greek - Hebrew - Chaldean to English, how is that MY interpretation if I am using the world wide accepted meanings for those words?

I can't speak for DaHanG, but if I've understood his point: Suppose the original language makes reference to the earth being like a circle.

If one is inclined to believe the earth is flat, then it seems likely one might interpret 'like a circle' to mean the earth is disc shaped.

But if one is inclined to believe the earth is spherical, then one might make the leap from 'circle' to 'sphere'.

But: circle -> disc, or circle -> sphere, are both interpretations of the original.


Regards,

quadz

Thanks quadz, for a very good explanation of the point (which I didn't see/understand) and I agree 100%. This is why I think its *very* important to understand the usage (tenses, etc) of the original language (or whatever language we are looking at for that matter). Heaven's know it makes a lot of difference in English, French, German & Spanish what tenses are used. Anyone who is proficient in more than one language can tell you how hard it is to transfer an idea from one culture/language group to another. However, if we know the usage of a particular word/word group by the consistent usage of those words in the original language it's makes it possible to know the original intent and usage of a particular block of texts.

I will be the first one to state / admit one problem with many "translations/versions" of the Bible (even some of those considered by some to be "infallible)  is those doing the "translation" are not taking the time to do the proper study of the culture and usage of the original language. This allows our "idea" of what was meant by the original author to creep into the translation. "Diligently compared with the original" doesn't mean much without the proper understanding of the culture and language usage.

Thanks!

QD

[quadz]

I will be the first one to state / admit one problem with many "translations/versions" of the Bible (even some of those considered by some to be "infallible)

[QuakeDuke]

But then, ... ... that would still seem to leave the question of how you arrived at:

In the 15th century we had folks who were convinced the sun revolved around the earth.  (...because the any contrary idea was, "expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.")

Uh..problem is - it's not....
It was, however, against their own interpretation.
Actually, the Holy Scriptures taught the earth was round at a time most of the world thought the earth was flat.

Well, I was trying to make a distinction between what the scrolls themselves said as opposed to the dogmatic "religious" flat-earthers of the time.

If we take the  (arg! no fonts to put the actual words here) usage of the Hebrew / Chaldean words we find the meaning definitely spherical as in a ball.

If I may, a way I use to teach the way those ancients understood the phrase "circle of  the earth" is an exposition of a phrase from Psalms 103:12 "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us."

Take a globe and start from any point on it and travel North. Eventually, you will find yourself passing a point where you will find yourself traveling South and vis a vis. However, if you begin at any point on that globe and start traveling East, you will NEVER find yourself traveling West UNLESS you reverse direction - you will ALWAYS be traveling East and vis a vis. This makes the concept of removal of transgressions total - never found again - which is consistent with the teaching of God never remember them against us again, if we have had them removed, and can only be true if there is a sphere, and not as we commonly take it as a flat circle.

From what you've said so far, I've understood you to mean:

 1. The foremost religious scholars of the 15th century interpreted the bible incorrectly.

No, not necessarily. Unfortunately, there were many mistakes for various reasons, many falling into the categories mentioned. The complexity of bringing an idea from one culture / language to another. I have always believed and taught we should be bound not by the literal "text" (or interpretation)  but by the concepts taught. For instance, when Jesus said "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." he did NOT leave ANYONE out - He means just what He said - this means *unconditionally* In other places we are told plainly if we are going to be true Christians, we will do this and if we refuse by making exception of any race, group, creed or anyone, then that person is NOT living true Christianity but is still living in the darkness and has no light of understanding what he has taught. Teaching "concepts" instead of the "literal" texts has NOT made me popular in many "Christian Circles" but at my age I'm not too worried about what they think.

2. The original language of the bible, if understood idiomatically at the time it was written, would unambiguously have stated concepts in a way that agree with the findings of modern cosmology.  That is, interpretation is not required, because if one understands the original languge as it was spoken idiomatically at the time it was written, it will turn out to unambiguously mean things like: the earth is spherical; and the earth revolves around the sun.  (Or at the very least, conversely, it will turn out to unambiguously not mean things like: the earth is flat; and the sun revolves around the earth.)

Have I understood correctly?
Regards,
quadz

If almost feel a loss of words at this point because some will take what I say next and say Ah Ha! See? I told ya there was nothing there, but I will try.

The problem here is the same as it is with understanding any ancient culture. We really don't have a complete understanding of how much knowledge they actually had about many things. I mentioned the pyramids as an example way back in the thread and caught all kinds of junk for it. We still don't know how they did it, we theorize a lot, but we don't know, and can't replicate it even with all our technology.

I believe it's in the same way as time goes on, and more and more is found / understood about ancient Egypt for instance (or any ancient culture), we gain a greater understanding of their culture / ways / etc, we say Ah Ha! That sure changes what we knew about ________ you fill in the blank, we need to add this into the equation and recalculate.

I do believe it's very important to understand the things I've mentioned in looking at the ancient texts - but I also believe that many things that could help our understanding have been lost / kept out/ or remain undiscovered at this time. Therefore, I think teaching the concept of unconditional acceptance of others, unconditional forgiveness of others are much more weighter things to teach than what passes for teaching in most churches these days. There are enough things to keep us busy doing those things than looking around trying to find some reason to exclude someone. *Nowhere* do I find in the extant scriptures we have concerning Jesus' teachings do I find where he ultimately turned *anyone* away - he even ate and drank with the one who betrayed him, and did not treat him any different than he did the other disciples.

Whew! Sorry so many words...

QD

[QuakeDuke]

Just as an aside... if we are going to go through the process of re-translating from the original language into English, we can probably drop the "thee's" and "thou's" right?   So a current translation into English would probably be something other than "thou dost not..." ?
Perhaps something like, "Do not murder.^*" _{(*) unless sanctioned by the state, check your local laws and ordinances}




Regards,
quadz

I almost missed this one   I totally agree - an actual, literal translation into THE ENGLISH USED TODAY would be YOU DON'T MURDER. It's important to keep the gender - Thou = YOU. This way I can't say - geeze, he's not talking about QD, he's GOT to be talking about quadz here. I hope you catch what I mean. I'm only using us as an example. The gender assignment leaves no one out.

QD

[DaHanG]

My macro point is that you still DO use your own interpretations, and when seemingly in conflict with another verse there must be a choice made of which one to take literally and which not to. You don't think the earth is a "circle". 

And we haven't even touched on the verses that suggest the sun orbits Earth and Earth doesn't move. 

All in all you seem to insist on literal interpretation, yet you don't even give a literal interpretation of the verses you are using. I can support all I have given with a literal translation/interpretation from the original languages, which is often in conflict with many modern and not so modern "translations" for many different reasons, some of which have been given in other dialogs I have in this thread.

It would therefore seem to me you are more interested in why I must be wrong in whatever I say than in actually carrying on a respectful dialog. I will be willing to dialog if you can carry on one without telling me what "I" am doing, what "I" think and why "I" am doing it . Otherwise....

QD

Going back to the beginning, you said the Bible "taught" certain things about the earth. I said what you say the Bible teaches is still your interpretation of it, nothing more. I don't think I've gone very far beyond that.

DHG

Ok. One more time then. If I give you the LITERAL language translation from Greek - Hebrew - Chaldean to English, how is that MY interpretation if I am using the world wide accepted meanings for those words?

QD

You never gave me the literal language, only the place to find the "circle" controversy. From what I've gathered, Isaiah 40:22 does not conclusively translate to "sphere". It is generally translated as circle, but can be translated to round or sphere. To simply declare the intended meaning as "sphere" does require a personal interpretation since it could have meant something different.

[QuakeDuke]

My macro point is that you still DO use your own interpretations, and when seemingly in conflict with another verse there must be a choice made of which one to take literally and which not to. You don't think the earth is a "circle". 

And we haven't even touched on the verses that suggest the sun orbits Earth and Earth doesn't move. 

All in all you seem to insist on literal interpretation, yet you don't even give a literal interpretation of the verses you are using. I can support all I have given with a literal translation/interpretation from the original languages, which is often in conflict with many modern and not so modern "translations" for many different reasons, some of which have been given in other dialogs I have in this thread.

It would therefore seem to me you are more interested in why I must be wrong in whatever I say than in actually carrying on a respectful dialog. I will be willing to dialog if you can carry on one without telling me what "I" am doing, what "I" think and why "I" am doing it . Otherwise....

QD

Going back to the beginning, you said the Bible "taught" certain things about the earth. I said what you say the Bible teaches is still your interpretation of it, nothing more. I don't think I've gone very far beyond that.

DHG

Ok. One more time then. If I give you the LITERAL language translation from Greek - Hebrew - Chaldean to English, how is that MY interpretation if I am using the world wide accepted meanings for those words?

QD

You never gave me the literal language, only the place to find the "circle" controversy. From what I've gathered, Isaiah 40:22 does not conclusively translate to "sphere". It is generally translated as circle, but can be translated to round or sphere. To simply declare the intended meaning as "sphere" does require a personal interpretation since it could have meant something different.

The possiblity of translation to another meaning is why it's important to know the usage rules of the language. I would like to print the actual words - actual phraseology, but as I mentioned in one of the dialogs to quadz, this board doesn't support the necessary fonts. Sorry. I don't know what else to do / tell you.

QD

[quadz]

If we take the