Okay, I know I haven't written in a while. The election and all. But I am getting over my PED (Post Election Depression--Look it up, it is a real disease) and I am ready to talk about life again.
So, I was at Toastmasters yesterday and had a fascinatingly disturbing discussion. A friend indicated that his problem with the Bible is that it does not transcend time. I asked him to expand on this thought. He said that the Bible is in stilted language. I asked him if he is referring to the Original Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, etc or was he referring to a particular translation? He did indicate that he is not fluent in the ancient languages in which the Bible was written. Thus, he was relying upon translations. We went on for some time discussing the problems with translations and the fact that we could not truly comment on the language used in the Bible unless we could read the original. This discussion was interesting and included discussion as to which translation is best. However, that is not the point of this posting.
The point that I would like to open up for discussion is this. Ultimately, my friend's argument boils down to this: The Bible was written in languages known only to a portion of the population, therefore it does not transcend the time/language barrier--Were G-D truly all-powerful, would He not have written it in such a way that it could be understood by all.
Please remember when discussing:
1. This friend of mine believes the Tower of Babel story is just a simplified childish story to explain what we now know to have much deeper roots.
2. This friend of mine does not buy the argument that translators are G-D's method of crossing the language and time barriers due to the imperfections of the translations.
3. This friend does not feel the argument extends to render all foreign language texts as not transcending time because they were not ostensibly written by G-D.
Charlie--If I have unfairly stated your position, please let us all know.
Have at it y'all and have fun.
G-D bless,
Jeff
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hi Jeff,
Good to hear that you gave my position such thought.
Yes, you have stated my position fairly well, although there’s a bit of the ‘straw man’ in there that I should expect from an opposing viewpoint.
All three of the position statements that you ascribed to me regard language as the central issue of our discussion last week.
I don’t believe that I used ‘childish’ to describe the Tower of Babel, which would be derogatory (not what I intended at all.)
What I feel is that it was a story designed to describe something they did not understand fully at the time. I admit that my linguistic history is insufficient to say whether they should have known how language evolved (there’s that word again) semantically and structurally different in disparate regions.
This story may have been used to explain the “origin of languages” to the best of their knowledge, or to consider the ability (or willingness) of their audience to understand what I believe to be the real reasons for so many languages.
The fact that it was also used to show that the “Heavenly Father” smote his children for trying to understand is another topic altogether, which also concerns me. A “creator” of men would certainly understand his creation, as well as their curiosity about what lies above the reach.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, I also have a problem with a God who would give us a brain with such awesome abilities, and then condemn us for using it. Of course, we can never understand that which is alleged to have created us, but why do we get blamed for trying? Knocking us off our tower, to crash to the ground , making us talk crazy, as the explanation for the mumbo-jumbo that other peoples speak, doesn’t seem to support that theory.
Would a fireman whose child tries to be a fireman by climbing a ladder “rescue” him to teach him become a fireman in due time, or would he just knock the kid off the ladder?
As for the Bible being written in such arcane language (something that the NIV attempted to correct, and I feel were less than fully successful), if it were truly created by and eternal God who Himself transcends time, could have written the Bible so that it would also transcend time, and not need translation.
According to the Bible, he accomplished a similar feat, if for just a short time :
“This purpose of the gift of tongues, namely to communicate God’s message to Israel, is verified in the three passages in Acts where speaking in tongues is mentioned. In Acts 2 tongues-speaking was used as a missionary or evangelistic tool in fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11. There was no need for the disciples to learn other languages before they could communicate the Gospel. God overcame the language barrier through the miracle-gift of tongues. On the day of Pentecost there were “Jews out of every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). And when the disciples “began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4), the hearers responded with the question, “And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:8). Observe that they were “Jews” from other countries who spoke many languages and dialects, and yet each heard the Gospel in his own tongue. Isaiah’s prophecy was being fulfilled. ”
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=393
Just as “[t]here was no need for the disciples to learn other languages before they could communicate the Gospel,” so could the Bible have been written so that it could be read by anyone without (mis)translation, with the inherent (mis)interpretation, however well meaning.
Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, et alia, are mere men, so their writings cannot be expected to rise to the level of supernaturally inspired writings of the Creator of the Universe, yet their books survive the test of time, linguistically, semantically, and logically, without such variance in their translations as one find with the Bible.
The NIV is a case in point, in that Christians believe that Jesus did not have an earthly father, and yet the NIV states the Joseph was the father of Jesus. Other faiths may believe differently.
Although I am neither Biblical scholar, nor an expert on religion, such a book that is of supernatural origin should not have such inconsistencies, or overly simplistic explanations such as the Tower of Babel, which may have deeper meanings embedded that might have been better communicated with a better story.
That’s not to say it was ‘childish’ but just that they didn’t know the real reason, and unfortunately their seemingly defensibly plausible explanation is recorded for all time “as gospel.”
I don’t believe that story, and didn’t give it much attention until I was told (is it it true ?) that (to paraphrase) everything in the Bible must be true, or none of it is?
The Bible was certainly a valuable writing, and I do not disagree there, and that is why I can agree that it is “The Good Book,” which could have transcended time if it had been intended to reach everyone (including me.)
Charlie
Air 1's Verse of the Day
11/19/2008
"So you should realize that just as a parent disciplines a child, the Lord your God disciplines you to help you."
Deuteronomy 8:5, NLT | View in context
So here is a text that might explain why G-d chooses to smite His children, which is, in fact how we refer to ourselves. G-d has a funny way of putting things in our paths that can open our eyes to His plan for us.
A little history that I have somehow in my brain and cannot quote references to you: The Bible is said to have been written thousands of years ago. I cannot imagine a single other piece of literature that has lasted so long and is still being discussed with such passion as the Bible. Plato, Aristotle, Descartes are also great scholars, but I have yet to see many blogs written re: their writings as we are now conducting on the Bible. It was written in the language of it's time (namely Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, languages that I believe are still in use) because G-d wanted it to be so. We cannot understand His reasons for that, but I think it is reasonable to say that He wanted all of it's readers to understand that He is able to use anyone, not only people He has bestowed special assignments. G-d chose to let the men of that time write the Bible in such a way that was maybe more of a personal gift to those men rather that G-d merely using the physical hand of that man to wrtie one of the most sold pieces of literature ever.
As to the fatherhood of Jesus: My little brother has one male figure in his life, his uncle. Because he was raised around my cousins who refered to him as daddy, my little brother refers to his uncle as Dad. Could we not also safety assume that Jesus did call this man Joseph dad when he was growing up because this was the man he had a father from birth? He also did know he had a heavenly Father that was every bit as worthy of that same title. Different versions of the Bible have different details, but the whole of the stories, the priniciples and instructions are the same.
Suzan,
When the NIV calls Joseph the father of Jesus, I'm pretty sure it wasn't because he called him "Dad" but I see your point.
My point however was that such (mis-)translations are a matter of perceptions and even potential editorializing of the original language, which unfortunately comes with any translation
I feel that an eternal, omnipotent God could easily perform an eternal “Pentecost” so that the Bible would always say just what God said, eliminating that pesky “middle man” who may introduce problematic, albeit purely linguistic, anomalies.
Re : "So you should realize that just as a parent disciplines a child, the Lord your God disciplines you to help you."
My point here with the Tower of Babel is not that there was or was not a lesson to be learned, but that, as an explanation of the origin of languages, I would have expected a better explanation, from which equally valuable lessons could be learned.
At the time, this was not a bad story to explain this phenomenon, but this begs the question of “transcending time” which was the original reason for this post, and the point I was making.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to discredit the Bible as “The Good Book.” There’s a reason that it is called that, which may be at least one reason it has stood the test of time, and why the language is not considered to be a major problem.
Plato, Aristotle, et al., have similar language problems, but I wade through them with equal effort.
The Bible has more variety, too, so that’s a plus, as well as being thought provoking on a much deeper level, hence my questions.
Thanks for your insights !
One of the biggest problems with the Bible is that it is not one book. Instead, the Bible is a conglomeration of writings from different people in different social constructs at different times. It is more of an anthology on the religious experience and progress of the Jewish and, then, Christians. The only reason the Bible is compiled into one volume is because a group of people decided that it would be better to put together writings about this new(ish) religion in order to form a better base for said religion. Albeit, the Jewish books were already compiled previous to that (which was added to the Bible as it was the roots of Christianity and early Christian writings are quite impossible to understand without it), but these are much a similar thing - an anthology of the Jewish faith. So, to refer to the Bible as one object is really only to refer to the decisions of the counsel members at Nicia (spelling?).
As far as translations go, it must be understood that most (if not all) of the works that comprise the Bible were records, laws, letters: documents meant for a specific people at a specific point in history. For example: Paul was writing letters to churches in order to convey his message to those churches. Perhaps, he felt the things he was writing had greater weight; perhaps he did not. Either way, he was writing with a specific task in mind. If the letter is simply taken out of time and out of context and the words transferred to another person at another point in history the letter is either misunderstood or a thinned-down in meaning. In order to see the full meaning of what Paul wrote, it must be understood in its original context. Yes, his words may have weight now - but it must be taken along with what it meant then. It is only when you understand the context that you can actually get at the truths Paul saw and was attempting to share with others. Just as a literature student studies the eras of history in order to understand the writings of past authors. A great example is this: "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matt 11:30) Most everyone I have heard talk about this verse talks about oxen and the yoke they wear. Then, they go on to say that Christ is telling everyone that - yes, he does give us a burden to carry; work to do. Just as the oxen must work, man must work too. But, Christ's burden is light, and so it is a burden you will be able to bear. This could have some truth in it, sure. But that isn't the meaning here at all. When taken in context, one finds that in the Jewish culture at this time the word "yoke" was used by Rabbis to mean the way they interpreted God's word (the Torrah at Christ's time). Thus, when a Rabbi said "this is my yoke" - he was saying, this is my way of looking at and interpretting what God's word is telling us. If a Rabbi said, "I am following so-and-so's yoke", he meant that he was agreeing with that Rabbi's way of interpretting the scriptures. So, when Christ says that his yoke is easy - he is actually saying that his way of interpretting the scriptures is easy. And, likewise, he was saying that the burden places on a person as an affect of his intreprettion was light. In other words, it was an agreeable way to look at God's word - one that you could be happy living with. But, without understanding the Jewish culture - one cannot hope to see the actual truth in this story. Which is why losing context is so dangerous.
That said, it is my opinion that many of the stories we find in the texts of the Bible are not there to tell us specific events which we need to believe it. But, I believe the truths of these myths (I use this term in its original meaning: ie a story in which fact/ficiton is irrlevant because the message of the story is true either way) lies much deeper. These are stories about human behavior and human interaction. These are stories about community and society. These are stories meant to grasp at the deep-seeded truths in each man. I don't think God intended the value of these myths to be found in the tiny details. And, it often seems that people who are so desperate for those details are actually in fear. They fear really trusting God, and so they cling to the minute truths in order to reassure themselves that the bigger truths might actually be true after all. It is "brickianity": when a person must have every brick aligned in their wall of faith in order to trust that it will hold.
I think we should be more open to the fact that the stories contained in the Bible are just that - stories. Many of them would have been passed down for generations verbally, which means they would have changed in one way or another. But, the root-truths would have held. And I believe that is what God is getting at with the Bible: root-truths. And so, translation is necessary because these stories are bound in humanity and in time (refer above to the idea of context). But the truths in these stories can be timeless; the truths can transcend language and human error. And I believe that is why the sacred texts we humans cling to must be translated. So that we can hopefully see that the deeper truths behind all of these myths are still relevant, still available, and still just as true - and that we should not cling to the bricks in our walls, but should not build walls of faith against each other. Rather, we should offer ourselves and our views of truth to each other in order to better understand those truths that are much harder to get at.
But that's just my two cents.
Post a Comment