bertot:
My simple point here was that this process did not happen over night, it was very slow and maticulous and carefully done as all the evidence would indicate. That is point though, isnt it. A careful consideration of what they had (Gods Word), being translted from one "known" text to another, even if some of theealiest ones are not still in existence. The ones we do have and there faithful transmission would indicated thier very existence.
“Translated” is the operative word here. “Translations” of ancient texts do not necessarily convey in an accurate fashion what the Source Text is conveying. Let’s use the word “Transmitted” meaning, “copied”, then I will be in agreement with you.
Further, one cannot simply dismiss intervention and providence in the process. As much as one may not like the idea, the content of the documents lend great suppport for this concept. Aside from this however, one could still be confident ased on the documents themselves. As you put it below:
Again, when it comes to doing an honest translation of these ancient document the Religious Doctrine adhered to by the translator should be put aside so that the Source Text can receive an unbiased attention to detail. Supernatural intervention and providence may well have been part of the original composition thousands of years ago? But so what, if translators are altering what the text actually conveys so to make the text say what is expected by their current Religious Doctrine? What you end up with is the word of the current Religious Doctrine conveyed by the current translator. But you are most certainly not getting an unbiased expression of “The Word of God.”
Think about it.
Is the BNHK still in existence?
Of course the Biblical-New Hebrew Kethib Text is still in existence. Above I shared with you the Masoretic Kethib and the Samaritan Kethib.
AM deciding whether or not the scriptures is the word of God or not, is not like choosing between a movie or a concert. Ones indication and decision will determine how he or she approaches it before, during and after studies. One does not need to "prove" this or that, only that there is enough information and evidence to support a given conclusion. "believing whatever fires your rocket" hardly describes how one would consider or interpret the scriptures.
If the vowel pointing of the Masoretic Text is questioned, then all translations based on that vowel pointing is being questioned. That is not a bad thing. All translations of the Kethib need to be questioned, for they all cannot be “correct”. Do you see what I am saying? Deciding what “interpretive translation” is in fact “the Word of God” will depend upon the Religious Doctrine adhered to by the person doing the deciding.
There is not a world-wide consensus regarding what “interpretive translation” of the Kethib constitutes “the Word of God.” That is a fact!
To demonstrate this point I give you the example that we were discussing about Christ's ascension and decension. You were viewing the topic from a nearly a one verse (very literal "interpres) interpretation, in contrast I was viewing what the scritptures had to say on the topic overall, SEE THE DIFFERENCE? To me it is a body of consistent doctrine, you do not view that way. It makes all the difference in the world how you approach the scriptures. An examination of a bare text with no understanding of what it has to say overall or viewing it as not necessarily inspired, is ok but will only take you so far.
Right! You comprehend the translation and interpretation of an ancient document based on what another ancient document”based on a particular Religious Doctrine”happens to convey. That is precisely how the Masoretic Hebrew scholars descided how the Kethib should be vocalized: based on what their particular Religious Doctrine demanded.
As an example of this I offer what you said in another post early on. You indicated that you had not studied the "rest" of the scriptures as you have the Hebrew Eden narrative, SEE THE DIFFERENCE
You are taking my words out of context, but I really do not care. The point is, the various Religious Doctrines conveyed in the Scriptures after the Eden Narrative do not alter the actual Kethib of the Hebrew Eden Narrative. I come at the Kethib Eden Narrative as if I do not know what it is “supposed” to say, but rather I study the Kethib Eden Narrative to learn what it actually may be conveying. If what it actually conveys confirms a particular Religious Doctrine, I will be happy with that. If what the Kethib Eden Narrative turns out not to support any existing Religious Doctrine, I will be happy with that too.
Do you see the difference?
Ger
™ Version 4.2