Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
67 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 64 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,082 Year: 4,194/6,534 Month: 408/900 Week: 114/150 Day: 7/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Politcally Correct Christ
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 301 (346427)
09-04-2006 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
09-04-2006 11:12 AM


Re: Is it just another book?
Sure. Its a free country, and perhaps many people would actually prefer the newer version. The Bible is just a book---its not an object of worship. Personally, I have no use for (the all inclusive translation), but interpretations of anything are poetic license. The more that the fundies get up in arms over it, the more copies it will sell!

The physical book of the Bible is just ink on pages, this much is true. But what is contained in a certain order is information. And its the information that offers any value. Just like a hard drive is just a piece plastic, but on the other hand carries all of this information. We don't worship the Bible, in a a sense of it being an effigy or an idol, however, we worship the information because the Word is God and God is the Word. To be sure:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness could not comprehend it.


“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 09-04-2006 11:12 AM Phat has taken no action

nwr
Member
Posts: 5968
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 17 of 301 (346429)
09-04-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 11:34 AM


Refuse?
Only the Word of YHWH is considered refuse.

That's a strange perspective.

That somebody values it highly enough to consider translating into culturally modern language sure seems far from considering it refuse.

Most of these oddball translations pick up some attention when first released, but interest soon wanes. I'm wondering why you find this so threatening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 11:34 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 301 (346436)
09-04-2006 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
09-04-2006 11:46 AM


The Difference between
Did you have a big bitch-fit when they translated the Bible into Latin, or into English? Don't you think they used their own judgement then, as well, in regards to the final wording used in the text?

No, I didn't and this is why: Translations don't change the meaning of a word. If I in Spanish told you that the word 'gato' means cat in English, I'd be right and I would not change the meaning of a word. If I told you that it meant dog-cat to be sensitive to dog lovers, I'd be espousing a lie and changing the definition of a word. The English language has many synonyms to use a plethora, a surplus, an overabundance of differnt words that mean the same things. That's the difference. Father doesn't mean mother and father isn't synoymous with parent. And to be sure that it doesn't mean the same thing, if it did, there would have been no use in changing the definition because it would have been evident to everyone in the first place.

It's just another translation.

No, this is a mistranslation.

King James had it translated into the English spoken in his time, this isn't any different. Nobody's gonna force you to read it, and somehow, I suspect that this Bible isn't going to make Christians hate gays and atheists any less, or whatever apocalyptic consequences of tolerance you're quaking in your boots about.

Its not a matter of forcing me to read it. Its a matter of some impressionable young person investigating the scriptures and is going to be confused on what the Word says or means. Its not for my benefit its for others who don't know any better. As for Christians hating gays and atheists, I guess it would counterproductive to spend time trying to reach them if they actually hated them. :rolleyes: Do you feel sufficiently martyred now?


“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2006 11:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2006 1:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 696 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 301 (346448)
09-04-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 12:26 PM


On translation
Translations don't change the meaning of a word.

Of course they do. Meanings change in every translation, because writing isn't simply a matter of stringing together words with precise, discreet meanings.

Any human writing neccessarily includes things like idiom and connotation - percieved meanings that are familiar to native speakers because of their shared experience with the language. You've never heard the phrase "lost in translation"? What did you think that meant?

Douglas Hofstadter famously explores this very real phenomenon in his book "Le Ton beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language", the title of which is a reference to the French poet Clement Marot, the translation of whose poetry the book is largely about. The title translates roughly as "the beautiful tones of Marot", but this literal translation only encapsulates a small fraction of how the title would be percieved by a native speaker of French. You see, "le ton beau" isn't exactly grammatically accurate; in French it would be more proper to say "le beau ton." But rendered as "le ton beau", it sounds like "le tombeau de Marot" - "the tomb of Marot", and, indeed, the cover of the book has a picture of a tombstone. "Le tombeau" also means "a work of art done in homage to a deceased person", referencing the fact that Hofstadter intends the book in homage both to Marot but also to his wife, a translator of French poetry, who died before it was written.

That's just one example of what can be lost in translation; of how concepts that are easily encapsulated in the words of one langauge can only be grossly approximated in the words of another. I mean it took a pretty long paragraph for me to explain a reference in English that any native speaker of French would have percieved immediately. How can you assert that translation is simply a matter of word substitution?

Father doesn't mean mother and father isn't synoymous with parent.

Well, Paul uses the greek word "arsenkoites" in Corinthinans. It's a word of his own invention, as near as we can tell. Literally translated into English, we might choose to render it as "couch-men." Now, open your Bible to Corinthians and tell me where we find that word "couch-man."

Nowhere, right? Because there are shades of meaning to plain words. Scholars of greek see the root "koitai" used in other contexts, some completly normal - referring to couches or beds - and in other context, as synonyms for sex or prostitution. If I used the term "bedwoman" or "couch-girl", you might understand that I'm saying "prostitute" in a really oblique way. So too does Paul seem to be referring to men whose profession is sex with men, which was a common duty of temple acolytes for certain deities in Greece at the time. Temple prostitution was a very common practice, for both men and women, and it was one that Paul was adamant should not be a part of the early Church.

King James writers, however, chose to render that word as "homosexual", apparently percieving Paul to be condemning a practice that was essentially unknown in the ancient world.

In Hebrew, though? The thing is - the Hebrew word for "father" was often used in a gender-neutral sense*, much as some people use "man" in a gender-neutral sense to try to describe both male and female humans. So, "father" could mean "parent" - in Hebrew. Do you see how that could pose an issue in translation? That simply transliterating from "father" in Hebrew to "father" in English means sacrificing a potential alternate meaning of the word as it was used in Hebrew?

Its a matter of some impressionable young person investigating the scriptures and is going to be confused on what the Word says or means.

How does what you're talking about change the meaning? How is the core experience of Christianity altered if they aren't raised to believe that God has a big cosmic penis? And if he doesn't have Godly male genitals, what's the justification for asserting maleness when maleness may not have been implied by the original text?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 12:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-04-2006 1:41 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 2:33 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 09-04-2006 4:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 2827 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 20 of 301 (346450)
09-04-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
09-04-2006 1:22 PM


Re: On translation
Excellent description of the issues, crashfrog. That took some time. Thanks.

Translation involves making choices in a situation where no one set of choices will catch everything. One can think of other translations of that French title crashfrog mentioned. Some will better catch this or that aspect of it in English. But none will catch everything.

I met the translator Everett Fox once:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Fox

He made a translation of the Pentateuch that is very much worth having on your shelf. Really pulls you into the text. Fascinating.

Fox compared the art of translation to the art of performance. It's like being a musician and you perform a work composed by someone else. You bring out this aspect of the music, that aspect, but in doing so you always forego other choices that could show something else.

That's why a really good work of music allows so many different interpretations. There's a lot to explore and no single interpretation is going to get it all.

A translation is a performance of a text.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2006 1:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2006 1:53 PM Archer Opteryx has taken no action

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 301 (346452)
09-04-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
09-04-2006 10:36 AM


Heh. It was interesting when I finally read the NIV. It was pretty clear to me, with what little I knew at that time about Biblical criticism, how the translaters allowed their (mostly conservative) theology influence their translation.


"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 09-04-2006 10:36 AM jar has taken no action

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 696 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 301 (346454)
09-04-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Archer Opteryx
09-04-2006 1:41 PM


Re: On translation
A translation is a performance of a text.

Damn that's like a 1000% better restatement of what I was trying to say. Well done.

To my mind, there's no better example of the translator's performance that Seamus Haney's translation of Beowulf. An astounding work of art that completely revitalized the material for me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-04-2006 1:41 PM Archer Opteryx has taken no action

ringo
Member
Posts: 19517
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 23 of 301 (346459)
09-04-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
09-04-2006 11:25 AM


Re: Eclectics of the world rejoice!
Phat writes:

I still get irked when people call God a "she" though!

And to me, "Father-Mother" just sounds silly.

But on the other hand, it's probably a better depiction of the reality of God.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 09-04-2006 11:25 AM Phat has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-04-2006 4:14 PM ringo has taken no action

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 301 (346463)
09-04-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
09-04-2006 1:22 PM


Re: On translation
Of course they do. Meanings change in every translation, because writing isn't simply a matter of stringing together words with precise, discreet meanings. Any human writing neccessarily includes things like idiom and connotation - percieved meanings that are familiar to native speakers because of their shared experience with the language. You've never heard the phrase "lost in translation"? What did you think that meant?

Some languages may have more precise meanings for certain, such as in the Greek, there are five descriptives terms for the word, "love," whereas the English language only has one word to describe it. Same thing in Inuit as it has upwards of 20 different words to describe snow. But if you think that the word Father couldve secretly meant Mother, you're going to have to go back through the lexicon to show that. Now, I would agree that some words lose their direct meanings occasionally, but those are usually with descriptive verbs or adjectives, not with nouns or pronouns. Its kind of hard to mistranslate Father, unless there was some slang introduced into the vernacular. As well, its one thing to make the mistake of translating a word with an incorrect usage, but its entirely another matter when someone intentionally changes the translation to suit an agenda.

That's just one example of what can be lost in translation; of how concepts that are easily encapsulated in the words of one langauge can only be grossly approximated in the words of another. I mean it took a pretty long paragraph for me to explain a reference in English that any native speaker of French would have percieved immediately. How can you assert that translation is simply a matter of word substitution?

Because we look at the word, the context its being used in, and its relation to what it conveys. In fact, I have several Bibles and the most recent translation is from a Jewish and scholar who translated the Complete Jewish Bible. His rendering is almost identical to that of the King James Bible. He only substitutes European names with their traditional Hebrew names, such as Jesus = Yeshua, Paul = Sha'ul, John = Yohana, Isaiah = Yeshayahu, Simon = Shimon, Jonah = Yonah, Moses =Moshe, etc.

Well, Paul uses the greek word "arsenkoites" in Corinthinans.

Which verse(s)? I'd like to look that up in Strong's Complete Concordance.

Nowhere, right? Because there are shades of meaning to plain words. Scholars of greek see the root "koitai" used in other contexts, some completly normal - referring to couches or beds - and in other context, as synonyms for sex or prostitution. If I used the term "bedwoman" or "couch-girl", you might understand that I'm saying "prostitute" in a really oblique way. So too does Paul seem to be referring to men whose profession is sex with men, which was a common duty of temple acolytes for certain deities in Greece at the time. Temple prostitution was a very common practice, for both men and women, and it was one that Paul was adamant should not be a part of the early Church.

Paul's words most likely is not invented, it was probably common slang in Greek in those days. And that's what I meant earlier when I said that nouns tend to be free from that kind of cryptic rendering. Couch-women was most likely slang for a prostitute, as you've shared. But beyond that I can't offer a further explanation until I know where it refers to couch-(wo)men.

King James writers, however, chose to render that word as "homosexual", apparently percieving Paul to be condemning a practice that was essentially unknown in the ancient world.

If the writer was speaking about homosexuality then there should be no qualms with this. Calling somone a "Human One" when it says "Son of Man", this is a large departure from the original translation. If Paul intended for the reader to understand male and female prostitution, then that's what he intended.

In Hebrew, though? The thing is - the Hebrew word for "father" was often used in a gender-neutral sense*, much as some people use "man" in a gender-neutral sense to try to describe both male and female humans. So, "father" could mean "parent" - in Hebrew. Do you see how that could pose an issue in translation? That simply transliterating from "father" in Hebrew to "father" in English means sacrificing a potential alternate meaning of the word as it was used in Hebrew?

No it isn't. The word used is "Abba," which is a very endearing term for someone's father. It denotes a little kid calling their father, "Daddy." Abba is not gender-neutral.

How does what you're talking about change the meaning? How is the core experience of Christianity altered if they aren't raised to believe that God has a big cosmic penis? And if he doesn't have Godly male genitals, what's the justification for asserting maleness when maleness may not have been implied by the original text?

I don't believe God is a male or a female simply because I don't believe He has any physical feature. I think all of His descriptions concerning Himself have Him explaning things in physical terms because that's what we are, physical beings. As for His using male terms in self-descriptions, I believe He is illustrating where man recieves his gnosis. Just as is it says in the Scriptures, a man's desire will be for His God and the women's desire will be after her husband.


“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2006 1:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 09-04-2006 3:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 09-04-2006 4:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2006 8:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 15931
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 25 of 301 (346474)
09-04-2006 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 2:33 PM


Re: On translation
nemesis writes:

Calling somone a "Human One" when it says "Son of Man"... is a large departure from the original translation.

I would argue that it depersonalizes Christ. The whole point is to personalize Him! (Not her, by the way)
nemesis writes:

I don't believe God is a male or a female simply because I don't believe He has any physical feature.

If you are referring to God the Father, I agree.

The counter-argument to all of this is that nobody really knows for certain how God establishes realationship to humanity. As a Believer, I believe that God finds us---we do not find Him. (and yes...I am comfortable using the gender of Him to refer to God. )

Scripture says that

NIV writes:

Gal 3:28-29-- There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Does that mean that In Christ I should not consider myself as a male? I suppose that I AM His Bride, after all! ;)

Peter Kreeft, a well known Catholic Apologist, delivered this talk which I found on the net. Quite an interesting perspective.

Kreeft writes:

Saint Paul's frequently quoted statement that ``in Christ... there is neither male nor female"[12] does not mean there is no sex in Heaven. For it refers not just to Heaven but also to earth: we are ``in Christ'' now.[13] (In fact, if we are not ``in Christ'' now there is no hope of Heaven for us!) But we are male or female now. His point is that our sex does not determine our ``in-Christness"; God is an equal opportunity employer. But He employs the men and women He created, not the neuters of our imagination.

I would assert that God in human form is Christ and that Christ is male. That does not preclude God from indwelling a female, however. In fact, the Bride of Christ represents humanity that accepts the communion.


“There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way” --C.S.Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 2:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 09-04-2006 3:37 PM Phat has taken no action
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 4:18 PM Phat has taken no action

ringo
Member
Posts: 19517
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 26 of 301 (346476)
09-04-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Phat
09-04-2006 3:28 PM


Re: On translation
Phat writes:

... Christ is male.

Interesting that we have another thread, How Likely Is It Jesus' got Married, where the same people are trying to argue that Jesus was essentially sexless. :)


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 09-04-2006 3:28 PM Phat has taken no action

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 573 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 27 of 301 (346483)
09-04-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2006 2:33 PM


Re: On translation
No it isn't. The word used is "Abba," which is a very endearing term for someone's father. It denotes a little kid calling their father, "Daddy." Abba is not gender-neutral.

hebrew/aramaic is not a gender-neutral language. everything has a gender.

(for point of reference, though, a group composed of one man and one woman are grammatically male.)


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 2:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2006 4:20 PM arachnophilia has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 2827 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 28 of 301 (346484)
09-04-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
09-04-2006 2:19 PM


Re: Eclectics of the world rejoice!
Ringo writes:

And to me, "Father-Mother" just sounds silly.

But on the other hand, it's probably a better depiction of the reality of God.

I appreciate the efforts people make to be inclusive. My complaint with most of the attempts I see is that the people doing it have tin ears. They need to leave the writing to the writers.

It's not about inventing new lingo and hoping others will pick it up. It's about using English--a flexible, versatile language--to show what you want to show. Plenty of words exist.

'Father-Mother' sounds contrived right off the bat because it isn't real English. Referring to God as 'Parent' sounds appropriately expansive at the cost of being abstract. 'Father' or 'Mother' gives a sharper image but a more restricted one.

No single rendering gets it all. But I agree with a poster I saw once in an Anglican book shop:

When talking about the Deity
no language is inclusive enough.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 09-04-2006 2:19 PM ringo has taken no action

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 301 (346486)
09-04-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Phat
09-04-2006 3:28 PM


Re: On translation
I would argue that it depersonalizes Christ. The whole point is to personalize Him! (Not her, by the way)

This is an even better argument than I made. You're absolutely right.

I don't believe God is a male or a female simply because I don't believe He has any physical feature.
If you are referring to God the Father, I agree.

Yes, as far as God the Father I don't believe He is male or female. These descriptions, I believe, are about God to help us understand that which has no physical personhood or at least not the need of a physical personhood. I mean, if God exists certainly there is so much we could not fathom about Him. I must we describe that which is transcendant? I believe God ascribed Himself in a certain way for our benefit and for understanding.

The counter-argument to all of this is that nobody really knows for certain how God establishes realationship to humanity. As a Believer, I believe that God finds us---we do not find Him. (and yes...I am comfortable using the gender of Him to refer to God.

This has some disturbing implications for me. If God finds us that implies that He never knew who we were and it implies that certain are "lucky" enough to get a chance for His salvation. I believe that God has offered eternal life to anyone and that He imparts certain 'pangs and feelings of longing' in the hearts of men to compel them to seek Him. However, if by chance you mean that the only way for us to understand God comes only by His own power to reveal Himself, I would agree with that statement.

Gal 3:28-29-- There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Does that mean that In Christ I should not consider myself as a male? I suppose that I AM His Bride, after all!

That verse speaks about how God doesn't show preferential treatment based on race, gender, nationality, etc. God is an equal opportunity employer. :smile: Here in the world of finite dimension you are a male or a female and it all serves its purpose. Are we going to be male and female in heaven? I doubt it based on what Jesus said told us. He said to the scribes asking Him about marriage:

"For in the resurrection they will neither marry, nor will they be given in marriage, but will be like the angels in heaven." -Matthew 22:30

I disagree with Kreeft for many reasons. This one verse brings that into disrepute, as Kreeft is placing too much emphasis on the mechanical aspects of sex rather than the spirutual attributes it was designed to hone. That sounds notoriously Mormon theologically with its "spirit babies."


“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 09-04-2006 3:28 PM Phat has taken no action

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 301 (346487)
09-04-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by arachnophilia
09-04-2006 4:13 PM


Re: On translation
hebrew/aramaic is not a gender-neutral language. everything has a gender. for point of reference, though, a group composed of one man and one woman are grammatically male.

Tell this to Crashfrog. It sounds like you and I are in agreement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 09-04-2006 4:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 09-04-2006 4:47 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022