 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
Veritas
Posts:250
 | | 11/14/2007 3:09 PM |
 Alert | Posted By rwallick on 11/14/2007 2:52 PM Posted By Veritas on 11/14/2007 8:42 AM Posted By ChimneyDuck on 11/14/2007 6:25 AM
4. The actual Hebrew word for knowledge in this passage is much more than a simple cognitive experience; it is an intimate form of knowledge, first-hand experiential level of knowledge. This cannot be had until the act is done. Bottom line, they knew it was "wrong" to take the fruit.
tood as "separation" than a literal physical on-the-spot death which you suggest even though the Hebrew words do not. Anyway, they knew that it was wrong and there was a price to pay ... this is sufficient.
Just two quick points. I will post again when I have more time and respond to some of the comments. The only "original" bible we have is a translation from a different source. Secondly. it is in an ancient form of Aramaic combined with ancient Hebrew. Any translations are destined to suffer from great disparities especially considering the antiquity of the language. If you want more information check out: http://cal1.cn.huc.edu BTW: Jesus and his disciples spoke a sort of Palestinian Aramaic Uh ... we do know a lot about the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. The OT was not written in Aramaic; at least not the version that modern translations are based on. Though the language has changed over time, just like any other language, there are no missing links in the language or our understanding of it. Yes, Jesus spoke Palestinian Aramaic along with the disciples and everyone else in Palestine at the time. So what?! This has no bearing on translating the Old or New Testaments. Your claim that there are "great disparities" because of the antiquity of the language is just false and completely ignorant of what has been discovered in the last 200 years with regard to these ancient languages. The original KJV was a great translation for its time considering what was known about ancient Hebrew and Greek. We've uncovered a great many things since then and the only disparities that exist today are when we translate into English from one of the original manuscripts. Even when we do this, the "disparity" is one of connotation, rather than denotation. Nice try. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 11/14/2007 3:13 PM |
Alert | Posted By rwallick on 11/14/2007 3:00 PM Posted By Veritas on 11/14/2007 10:27 AM Posted By ChimneyDuck on 11/14/2007 9:39 AM
1. The original Hebrew language itself as well as the literary style drive a proper interpretation.
I forgot to mention. Nobody speaks the "original" Hebrew language. The only way we will truly understand it is when we have time travel. We can only make educated guesses as to meaning and context. Ridiculous! So since no one speaks Aristotelian Greek we can't possibly understand what Plato meant?! Or since no one speaks the King's English anymore we cannot understand what Issac Newton meant when he explained gravity?! You obviously ARE NOT a student of history. Again, nice try ... but in the end, your musings are that of a sophist. | | | |
|
| | JasonY
Posts:2581
| | 11/14/2007 3:49 PM |
Alert | Posted By rwallick on 11/14/2007 3:00 PM Posted By Veritas on 11/14/2007 10:27 AM Posted By ChimneyDuck on 11/14/2007 9:39 AM
1. The original Hebrew language itself as well as the literary style drive a proper interpretation.
I forgot to mention. Nobody speaks the "original" Hebrew language. The only way we will truly understand it is when we have time travel. We can only make educated guesses as to meaning and context. The original language is Coptic I believe...... | |
"My favorite health club is the International House of Pancakes" -- Lewis Black | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:230
| | 11/15/2007 8:53 AM |
Alert | I really don't appreciate things being attributed as quoting from me that I didn't write, if you guys don't know how to use the forum quotes, please just use the old fasioned " marks.
Ok, Veritas, I'll take you up on
"2. Yes the word "Satan" is not in the English translation, but scholars from Moses to now understood it to be Satan and the whole of scripture attests to this as well. "
Why don't you show me a reference of the serpent as satan that occurred before the first century? Even today, I don't think that Jews consider satan in this story at all.
I'm still failing to understand what you think the fruit of the tree represents. To me, it represents sentience, knowing right and wrong, and free will. Taking this fruit is what led man to be what he is today, otherwise, we'd still be naked running around like animals in the garden.
| |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | regancolston1214
Posts:180
| | 11/15/2007 9:01 AM |
Alert | | WOW I am impressed that this thread is still going strong! | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 11/15/2007 9:09 AM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 11/15/2007 8:53 AM
I'm still failing to understand what you think the fruit of the tree represents. To me, it represents sentience, knowing right and wrong, and free will. Taking this fruit is what led man to be what he is today, otherwise, we'd still be naked running around like animals in the garden.
How can the fruit of the tree represent "sentience" when they were already sentient? Having a relationship with God, with each other, naming the animals and having dominion over them requires a sentient being.
They already knew right and wrong, in that they knew it was wrong to take of the tree. While there is a connection between right and wrong, they are not necessarily good and evil. As previously stated, "knowing good and evil" is a first-hand experiential knowledge. God issued a decree to protect them from a knowledge of evil that would destroy their freedom.
With regard to free will, I fail to see how you fail to see that they had free will before and after "the Fall". They had free will to obey and they had free will to disobey. If God wanted to keep them from the Tree no matter what, then He would have guarded it like He did the Garden after the Fall, but He did not. He gave them the freedom to choose.
Yes, if it weren't for the Fall of Man, we'd all be running around naked in the Garden talking to the animals like Tarzan. Don't think about that too much ... it could be a scary thing. | | | |
|
|  | rwallick
Posts:44
| | 11/21/2007 9:05 PM |
Alert | Posted By Veritas on 11/14/2007 3:13 PM Posted By rwallick on 11/14/2007 3:00 PM Posted By Veritas on 11/14/2007 10:27 AM Posted By ChimneyDuck on 11/14/2007 9:39 AM
1. The original Hebrew language itself as well as the literary style drive a proper interpretation.
I forgot to mention. Nobody speaks the "original" Hebrew language. The only way we will truly understand it is when we have time travel. We can only make educated guesses as to meaning and context. Ridiculous! So since no one speaks Aristotelian Greek we can't possibly understand what Plato meant?! Or since no one speaks the King's English anymore we cannot understand what Issac Newton meant when he explained gravity?! You obviously ARE NOT a student of history. Again, nice try ... but in the end, your musings are that of a sophist. Actually I am a student of history. I just also happen to be a scientist/engineer. Therefore I don't pretend to know what is currently unknown nor to believe that our knowledge is complete. I am also aware that our quest for knowledge in ongoing -- constantly questioning what we believe to be true. The key is we just can't be certain of our understanding of ancient literature. (Check what is going on in the field of theoretical linguistics in our attempts to understand human communication.) When we read something, we have no idea of the context; that's why there are all these emoticons to the right of what I'm writing  , to help you understand my context. You have absolutely no ideal whether I am kidding in what I write or are dead serious. Am I sitting around writing this in a bar with some friend drunks and laughing our heads off? Or was I half asleep when I wrote this? Are you telling me that you can answer these questions with 100% accuracy base upon what I have written here? And that you can know with complete uncertainty what the meaning is of what is written in the bible -- Theologians must wiser than you or I have been arguing this for over a thousand year. Look at all the different sects that interpret the bible differently. It is nt more ridiculous to ascribe certainty to ancient writings than to claim the ability to read one's mind. Thanks for calling me a sophist. I assume you mean the ancient Greek meaning (see wikipedia): "The term sophism originates from Greek sophistes, meaning "wise-ist", one who "does" wisdom, one who makes a business out of wisdom (sophós means "wise man"...In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric." Rather than the modern: "In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone." Interesting how the meaning of words change over time  . BTW: There is a huge difference between understanding math/science and literature such as the bible. | |
"The real trouble with war...is that it gives no one a chance to kill the right people."
- Ezra Pound | |
|
| | rwallick
Posts:44
| | 11/21/2007 9:31 PM |
Alert | Posted By JasonY on 11/14/2007 3:49 PM Posted By rwallick on 11/14/2007 3:00 PM Posted By Veritas on 11/14/2007 10:27 AM Posted By ChimneyDuck on 11/14/2007 9:39 AM
1. The original Hebrew language itself as well as the literary style drive a proper interpretation.
I forgot to mention. Nobody speaks the "original" Hebrew language. The only way we will truly understand it is when we have time travel. We can only make educated guesses as to meaning and context. The original language is Coptic I believe...... Sorry but the old testament mostly in Hebrew, except for portions of the book of Daniel, which is in Aramaic. The new testament is in Koine Greek. You can easily check this (and I recommend you do.) I think the Coptic version came around 170AD -- but I'm not sure. Nothing exists of the original old or new testaments. If I remember there are bits and pieces floating around of the old testament dating to around 400BC and the new to around 125AD. If I remember my studies, Jesus spoke a form of Palestinian Aramaic. I would guess he also spoke Hebrew as it would have been useful. Caveat: I am writing from memory -- if you care, fact check and let me know. | |
"The real trouble with war...is that it gives no one a chance to kill the right people."
- Ezra Pound | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 11/21/2007 9:37 PM |
Alert | Posted By rwallick on 11/21/2007 9:05 PM
Actually I am a student of history. I just also happen to be a scientist/engineer. Therefore I don't pretend to know what is currently unknown nor to believe that our knowledge is complete. I am also aware that our quest for knowledge in ongoing -- constantly questioning what we believe to be true. The key is we just can't be certain of our understanding of ancient literature. (Check what is going on in the field of theoretical linguistics in our attempts to understand human communication.)
That is all fine and good, but to say that we DO NOT know what ancient languages like Greek and Hebrew mean in their original context is pure folly and some sort of soft agnosticism. This flies in the face of what science has worked so hard to uncover over the centuries of investigating ancient languages and culture. To confuse theoretical linguistics with the established sciences of archeology and paleontology is a conflation of the highest degree.
For example, to say that we do not "know" that the first Hebrew word of Genesis "Bara" means to create from nothing is like saying that we do not know that Newton's Second Law deals with a change in momentum.
You also seem to misunderstand the main thrust of Theoretical Linguistics, which is aimed at the large-scale structure of language. Yes, some of it's smaller branches contend with the history of language, but a cognitive model imposed on language after the language has been expressed cannot change what the language means, especially when that meaning is a matter of recorded history.
Posted By rwallick on 11/21/2007 9:05 PM When we read something, we have no idea of the context; that's why there are all these emoticons to the right of what I'm writing , to help you understand my context. You have absolutely no ideal whether I am kidding in what I write or are dead serious. Am I sitting around writing this in a bar with some friend drunks and laughing our heads off? Or was I half asleep when I wrote this? Are you telling me that you can answer these questions with 100% accuracy base upon what I have written here? And that you can know with complete uncertainty what the meaning is of what is written in the bible -- Theologians must wiser than you or I have been arguing this for over a thousand year. Look at all the different sects that interpret the bible differently. It is nt more ridiculous to ascribe certainty to ancient writings than to claim the ability to read one's mind.
This is why you are a sophist, but not of the ancient degree. But since we do not really know what the ancients meant by the term, how can you be sure that I mean the modern definition that is not so flattering.
Also, to confuse an emoticon with an established symbol of a representational system such as language, is absolutely ridiculous. Emoticons are inherently vague whereas words are not. Syntax and rules govern meaning and combination.
Also also, the disagreement between various sects of religion and their theologians are matters of doctrine, not linguistics. This is why you are not a good student of history ... you do not know the difference between a debate over application versus interpretation.
Posted By rwallick on 11/21/2007 9:05 PM
BTW: There is a huge difference between understanding math/science and literature such as the bible.
Yes. What does that have to do with anything? | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 11/21/2007 10:03 PM |
Alert | Posted By rwallick on 11/21/2007 9:31 PM
Sorry but the old testament mostly in Hebrew, except for portions of the book of Daniel, which is in Aramaic. The new testament is in Koine Greek. You can easily check this (and I recommend you do.)
Already knew that ... not in dispute here.
Posted By rwallick on 11/21/2007 9:31 PM
I think the Coptic version came around 170AD -- but I'm not sure. Nothing exists of the original old or new testaments. If I remember there are bits and pieces floating around of the old testament dating to around 400BC and the new to around 125AD.
Original OT manuscripts are most certainly dust by now, but their copies are generally believed to be reliable. One evidence of this is in the fact that the Isaiah scroll found in the Qumran cave was identical to the the then oldest known copy that came nearly a thousand years later. Given the tradition of the Masoretes and Judasim in general, it is more unreasonable to believe that the transmission degraded beyond recognition over time.
As far as NT manuscript evidence, we have plenty of original manuscripts. Ever heard of the Ryland fragment? Anyway, there are over 5,000 pieces of manuscript evidence dated within 100 years of the events of the NT and almost 25,000 within the first 200 years. The 1st and 2nd century letters between the original church fathers and their disciples include all but 11 verses of the NT. When compared to the manuscript evidence, there is no "noise" int he transmission.
There is NOT ONE ancient document in this time frame that has anything like the overwhelming amounts manuscript evidence, much less the proximity to the events described. ALL other ancient documents of this time have manuscript evidence beyond the 200 year time-frame that defines a document to be "legendary" rather than "historical". You're reading to many web sites authored by unqualified sophists. 
Posted By rwallick on 11/21/2007 9:31 PM
If I remember my studies, Jesus spoke a form of Palestinian Aramaic. I would guess he also spoke Hebrew as it would have been useful.
There isn't a historian worth their weight in water who would disagree with this. It is a well-known feature of this time in history; that is, if we can really understand what those ancient historians meant when they wrote whatever they wrote in whatever language that they wrote in ... whatever that meant.
Your logic destroys every premise that you forward, and therefore the entire argument that you offer with regard to understanding language. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 11/21/2007 10:04 PM |
Alert | Posted By rwallick on 11/21/2007 9:31 PM
Sorry but the old testament mostly in Hebrew, except for portions of the book of Daniel, which is in Aramaic. The new testament is in Koine Greek. You can easily check this (and I recommend you do.)
Already knew that ... not in dispute here.
Posted By rwallick on 11/21/2007 9:31 PM
I think the Coptic version came around 170AD -- but I'm not sure. Nothing exists of the original old or new testaments. If I remember there are bits and pieces floating around of the old testament dating to around 400BC and the new to around 125AD.
Original OT manuscripts are most certainly dust by now, but their copies are generally believed to be reliable. One evidence of this is in the fact that the Isaiah scroll found in the Qumran cave was identical to the the then oldest known copy that came nearly a thousand years later. Given the tradition of the Masoretes and Judaism in general, it is more unreasonable to believe that the transmission degraded beyond recognition over time.
As far as NT manuscript evidence, we have plenty of original manuscripts. Ever heard of the Ryland fragment? Anyway, there are over 5,000 pieces of manuscript evidence dated within 100 years of the events of the NT and almost 25,000 within the first 200 years. The 1st and 2nd century letters between the original church fathers and their disciples include all but 11 verses of the NT. When compared to the manuscript evidence, there is no "noise" int he transmission.
There is NOT ONE ancient document in this time frame that has anything like the overwhelming amounts manuscript evidence, much less the proximity to the events described. ALL other ancient documents of this time have manuscript evidence beyond the 200 year time-frame that defines a document to be "legendary" rather than "historical". You're reading to many web sites authored by unqualified sophists.
Posted By rwallick on 11/21/2007 9:31 PM
If I remember my studies, Jesus spoke a form of Palestinian Aramaic. I would guess he also spoke Hebrew as it would have been useful.
There isn't a historian worth their weight in water who would disagree with this. It is a well-known feature of this time in history; that is, if we can really understand what those ancient historians meant when they wrote whatever they wrote in whatever language that they wrote in ... whatever that meant.
Your own logic destroys every premise that you forward, and therefore the entire argument that you offer with regard to understanding language. | | | |
|
| | rwallick
Posts:44
| | 11/22/2007 8:36 AM |
Alert | Posted By Veritas on 11/14/2007 3:09 PM
Yes, Jesus spoke Palestinian Aramaic along with the disciples and everyone else in Palestine at the time. So what?! This has no bearing on translating the Old or New Testaments.
Your claim that there are "great disparities" because of the antiquity of the language is just false and completely ignorant of what has been discovered in the last 200 years with regard to these ancient languages. The original KJV was a great translation for its time considering what was known about ancient Hebrew and Greek. We've uncovered a great many things since then and the only disparities that exist today are when we translate into English from one of the original manuscripts. Even when we do this, the "disparity" is one of connotation, rather than denotation.
Nice try.
As it is a high probability that Jesus spoke Palestinian Aramaic, should all his quotes be in Palestinian Aramaic not Greek. Anything that Jesus said in his native tongue had than to be translated to Greek for the new testament. Or did Jesus speak Greek for the purposes of the new testament? How can you say a person's native tongue has no bearing on translating them into other tongues? The translation accuracy is dependent on the translators knowledge and ability and agenda; do you know who did the translation(s)? If I told you I had an "egg cream", how would you translate that into modern day Spanish never mind ancient Greek?
At least you admit there are disparities between the "original" (what ever you mean by that) and the KJV. First, I would ask you which definition of "connotation" are you using? Are you using it to imply a value judgment or feeling implied with the word? Or are you interpreting it as "intention?" Or perhaps one of some specific and obscure semantical meaning? Words have different meaning to different people; look at the problems we have today just among English speaking peoples (ever try to understand a Kiwi?) The simple fact that there ARE connotative differences lends credence that no one claim complete accuracy when translating the bible or any other document unless she has the author validate it.
I suggest, for a starters, you read "The Imperatival Participle in the New Testament" by Travis Williams to give you and idea just how difficult it to understand what is written (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4084) The greater the antiquity of the text the greater the difficult in it's understanding -- the old testament is much older then the new and therefore even harder to understand.
P.S. This is not a game to me; there is no nice try. I'm not trying to do anything except bring truth to light as an ongoing goal. All I'm trying to do is to elucidate. There is NO agenda! | |
"The real trouble with war...is that it gives no one a chance to kill the right people."
- Ezra Pound | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 11/22/2007 9:36 AM |
Alert | Posted By rwallick on 11/22/2007 8:36 AM
As it is a high probability that Jesus spoke Palestinian Aramaic, should all his quotes be in Palestinian Aramaic not Greek. Anything that Jesus said in his native tongue had than to be translated to Greek for the new testament. Or did Jesus speak Greek for the purposes of the new testament? How can you say a person's native tongue has no bearing on translating them into other tongues? The translation accuracy is dependent on the translators knowledge and ability and agenda; do you know who did the translation(s)? If I told you I had an "egg cream", how would you translate that into modern day Spanish never mind ancient Greek?
Jesus surely spoke Greek during His time on earth; however, He DID NOT dictate the writing of anything. The Apostles wrote the NT. They wrote it in Greek. Some dictated to scribes while others (like Luke and Paul) actually wrote it themselves.
The translators work has been checked and rechecked and rechecked for centuries ... they got it right. If you mean from original language into English, then there are discrepancies between KJV, NASB, NIV, etc., but nothing of major import. The message is intact.
We know about every scribal variant (error) and how that variant propogated over time. These "errors" are minor ... like "the's" and "and's", commas, etc. All in all, the accuracy has been measured at 99.6%. No major or minor themes are affected by the variation.
Posted By rwallick on 11/22/2007 8:36 AM
At least you admit there are disparities between the "original" (what ever you mean by that) and the KJV. First, I would ask you which definition of "connotation" are you using? Are you using it to imply a value judgment or feeling implied with the word? Or are you interpreting it as "intention?" Or perhaps one of some specific and obscure semantical meaning? Words have different meaning to different people; look at the problems we have today just among English speaking peoples (ever try to understand a Kiwi?) The simple fact that there ARE connotative differences lends credence that no one claim complete accuracy when translating the bible or any other document unless she has the author validate it.
The problems that we have with understanding the intent behind English words is irrelevant with respect to Greek and Hebrew. Those languages, especially Greek, are remarkably precise. We know plenty about Koine Greek and thus what the NT means. Same holds true for the OT. It's simply fallacious to claim that the Bible cannot be understood because we can't know what the original languages mean.
I have two interlinear Bibles (Greek, Hebrew and English together) as well as several lexicons. Though it is sometimes tedious to transliterate, it is not rocket surgery. Though there are some very complex grammatical rules in both languages, they are precise and well known and therefore establish the clarity that is possible in not only translation but also in interpretation.
Posted By rwallick on 11/22/2007 8:36 AM
I suggest, for a starters, you read "The Imperatival Participle in the New Testament" by Travis Williams to give you and idea just how difficult it to understand what is written (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4084) The greater the antiquity of the text the greater the difficult in it's understanding -- the old testament is much older then the new and therefore even harder to understand.
Again, I think that you misunderstand the import of what you read. That article demonstrates how well we know what to do with the language. Because something is difficult, or whether or not people disagree, DOES NOT mean we cannot know what the words mean.
Posted By rwallick on 11/22/2007 8:36 AM
P.S. This is not a game to me; there is no nice try. I'm not trying to do anything except bring truth to light as an ongoing goal. All I'm trying to do is to elucidate. There is NO agenda!
OK ... but it does not seem that you have the noble aim that you profess to have. Besides, everyone has an agenda ... to deny that is to lie to oneself and everyone else as well. Your agenda is clear: the Bible cannot be understood because we can't understand the original languages or trust the manuscript evidence. My agenda is clear: the Bible can be understood in it's original languages and the manuscript evidence is more reliable than any other ancient document.
I have the facts on my side and you do not.
Furthermore, as demonstrated in another post, your logic is fundamentally flawed on this topic.
Also, though important and useful, this tangent is off the path of this forum. Typical of those who like the God Delusion though ... not logical, not factual, diversionary, etc. | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|