Posted on 10/04/2005 4:28:28 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Since I don't use the KJV or any English version unless I can't make out the original Hebrew, what do I care for what it says? The Bible can't be translated. "Translations of the Bible" are just that--translations--and not actual Bibles.
Remember, I believe the Torah was dictated, and it was the Hebrew that was dictated. Translations only convey the basic sense but not the actual dictated letters. I consider it highly ironic that so many advocates of verbal plenary inspiration also insist on the sufficiency of a translation.
As a Jewish convert to Christianity, I tend to agree with you re: the dangers of translations.
My Hebrew is weak, even after living in Isreal.
I have a great comparative Bible that has the so-called "Hebrew Bible" translation (much more a direct transation, albeit sometimes too literal), the NIV, the NIS, and the King James side-by-side (by side), along with the detailed footnotes from NIV.
It's very handy.
I saw a case recently in California where an Episcopal Diocese lost a suit drawn by a Church in that Diocese and was forced to turn the property over to the local Church.
Yeah, we just opted for the believers-don't-sue-believers high road.
The building is essentially empty and a huge drain on the diocese. I hope we can get it back.
Hmmm. A favorite verse of anti-Catholics is Matthew 23:9...
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (King James Version).Taken literally, this means that you may not call your biological father, "father." If you say it is not literally meant that way, welcome to the Catholic Church!
What has that got to do with whether or not Jonah actually existed, or with the claim that a belief in the historicity of the Book of Jonah is less "intellectual" than a belief that a dead man rose from his tomb some 2000 years ago? Both are miracles, both are violations of the rules of nature. But Jewish miracles are offensive to the intellect while chr*stian ones are not.
Catholics attack Fundamentalist "literalism" by invoking parables, hyperbole, and figures of speech. But the fact is that Fundamentalism is not based on "literalism" defined in this way but in a simple belief in the supernatural--ie, that miracles actually occurred. That is the "literalism" that Fundamentalism is "guilty" of, and Catholics can only respond by saying that the world isn't literally square with four corner. I'm sorry, but this whole argument is dishonest.
Since I was Catholic for six years and am no longer a chr*stian, no way am I ever goin' back, Geezer, nor would I be welcome.
Fundamentalist exegesis runs into problems precisely because of the illogical assertions literal interpretations require, and you have not responded to my statement which gave an example of the Fundamentalist approach. Instead you've merely implied that I am intellectually anti-Semitic, an ad hominem attack and a curious assumption not based upon my statement. That's OK: if you do not wish to engage in this discussion, that's OK too. Your remarks do not diminish me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.