[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b]
This is a common problem with all translated documents. When the need comes for a definite specific definition you need to go to the actual source to see what the intended meaning was.
[/QUOTE]
... and if you believe, as an article of faith, in the inerrancy and internal consistency of a particular document then the "intended" meaning must be one that supports that view.
I remember quite well reading an article in a church magazine that went to great lengths to prove that the "true" meaning of the word "wine" when used of the miracle at Cana, must have referred to a non-alcoholic drink, because it was entirely inconcievable that Jesus could have participated in any alcohol-related festivity, let alone brought about by a miracle the provision of intoxicating liquor. Quite a few passages of the bible were quoted which condemnded wine drinking. The argument for a unique - indeed unparalleled - idiolectic use of the common greek word for "wine" was entirely predicated on the need for internal biblical consistency.
Now, I'm not going to hold redstang or anyone else to this interpretation. My point is that such exercises are entirely self serving and demonstrate little, save the linguistic and grammatical ingenuity of the interpreter.
For example, in Scotland in the 16th century, John Napier was so convinced - from first principles and as an article of faith - that the Pope was the Antichrist, that he thought to prove mathematically how the number of the beast could be derived from the pontiff's name. The calculations required to do so were so complex that they led to his discovery and publication of logarithms - necessary for such vast and unwieldly computations. Yet no doubt he was quite satisfied that he had extracted a true result, because the result he found matched his expectations.
The simple truth, which resdtang et al imply, is that interpretation of the Bible requires the application of human reason. It requires sedulous, evidentiary and comparative study, the proper use of logic to draw valid conclusions and a degree of openness to challenge, lest the conclusions one draws are too influenced by personal prejudices, predilictions or failings.
Strangely enough, or perhaps not strangely at all, those interpretations which are most congenial to the reader are those most likely to be believed.
I well remember the elder of the church in my own parish who would argue till the moon turned blue that the first chapters of Genesis were to be interpreted quite literally and that no gloss but the common meaning of the words was required. Oddly, when he came to read his New Testament, in the warmth and comfort of his fine house, or perhaps the copy which was always in the glove compartment of his Mercedes, he found that the plain words "go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor" required quite a complex little exegetical dance. And as a broker of insurance and pension plans, he apparently found no difficulty in going back to the source and finding a suitable meaning for "Take therefore no thought for the morrow".
™ Version 4.2
