Posted on 04/12/2010 9:33:31 PM PDT by Salvation
I love you. :D
My BA is in Biblical Studies and I had to have a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. I also took Latin but that was elective.
In Grad school, I too had to be able to sight read both the OT and NT for the language exams. So I do know the work you have put in.
**the inscription on the cross, “King of the Jews,” was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin.**
Excelelent point.
In my studies Aramaic was an advanced Hebrew course. They are similar enough that it is usually covered in Hebrew training, although CH’s experience may be different.
How many years of Greek, Hebrew and Latin do you have free? Just curious...
I believe many people, however, forget about the influence of the Holy Spirit in Scripture — and just think that it was men who wrote it.
A obvious example would be the voices of atheists.
Paul to the Romans?
John 6 is not a translation problem. We differ on how to interpret the text, but we could use either the NAB or the ESV and still disagree.
I say the context shows Jesus is talking about spiritual bread and spiritual life, while Catholics argue it is physical bread and spiritual life.
In my experience, we can both give our explanations, and then need to understand that we still disagree. It is probably a simpler thing for me - as long as you partake and believe, I’m content. It is a bit more difficult for the Catholic, who believes I’m not really partaking. But some issues will need to be resolved in heaven.
There are lots of unresolved differences in the Catholic Church as well. Is Genesis literal or figurative? Is Jonah literal? Charismatic or not?
In the end, our differences lie primarily in Sola Scriptura, or not. When Paul said he revealed the whole counsel of God, was it whole? Or was it needing further unfolding?
Having debated much of it at length, I tend to avoid religion threads now. But that is where our differences lie - not in translation.
Greek. Koine Greek was the universal language of the world, much like English is today. Hellenization had been going on for over 300 years, since the time of Alexander the Great.
None were. Hebrew & Greek.
freedumb2003 wrote:
“The word “accurately” is the problem here. In Genesis I and Genesis II the Hebrew (double translated, no less) word “Yom” is used and is colloquially translated as “day.” In fact, “yom” means “defined period” (based on some scholars of early Hebrew) and the “period” is defined by the observer!”
As it happens I’m rather familiar with Hebrew and Greek as well. But neither is particularly needed in the example you cite, since the “period” is there defined: “God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and morning were the first day.” (Genesis 1:5) The Hebrew is even simpler and more concrete, calling that first evening and morning “day one.”
Also, far more useful than Latin for Bible translation, especially of the Old Testament, would be the other Semitic languages both older than and contemporaneous to Hebrew, and to a much lesser extent, Egyptian.
Thanks for your take here. This turned into quite an interesting thread. I really didn’t anticipate it; I’ve been hanging onto it for quite a while as you can see by the original date. LOL!
Blessings to you.
Bottom lime: God did not say he created in Genesis I (and I won't get into the changes in the same story in Genesis II) the Universe was created in 7 terrestrial 24 hour periods.
Also, far more useful than Latin for Bible translation, especially of the Old Testament, would be the other Semitic languages both older than and contemporaneous to Hebrew, and to a much lesser extent, Egyptian
Unless and until the translations are made from the source languages, there can and will be cultural translation creep.
And thus, we cannot depend on the Bible as a specific scientific text. We MUST depend on it to speak to our hearts on how we should relate to God and our fellow man (the latter I must admit in my shame I fail more often than not in my anger and ego).
I envy you your ability to read in so many languages. I can sometimes get into the flow of Spanish and read the newspaper in Mexico but those are too few and more often than not exercises in headache making.
In my experience with Catholic bible studies, the hierarchy or lack thereof has nothing to do with it.
Catholics often have not read the Bible that much growing up. We hear the Word each week at Church, and get the major ideas, but haven’t sat down to carefully read through passages and footnotes. Sometimes, in “small group ministry” studies, there is no clergy present or anybody who has any background, although there might be a workbook with discussion questions. At Mass, the priest does not do a sermon on interpreting the Scripture. He tells an opening joke, then makes a broad point about the theme of the day, often illustrated with a story about the priest himself (usually “struggling” or accepting his “brokeness”). Not the best foundation on which to begin Scripture study. But we’re trying, and we are learning. And actually, we do have a priest who has led educational series’ on various books of the Bible, using his background in biblical languages. Those are relatively well-attended when offered.
>>I believe many people, however, forget about the influence of the Holy Spirit in Scripture — and just think that it was men who wrote it.
A obvious example would be the voices of atheists.<<
That is my point. Those who look to God’s Word as a guide to navigating the treacherous world will see the Path laid before them (and I do NOT claim to see that — I sort of stumble to the beacon He lays out and hope I am at least in the weeds that are near the path).
Atheists must live the lonely existence and afterlife their lack of faith builds for themselves. They create their own isolation chambers for life.
No, the Holy Scripture cannot be translated accurately without the knowledge of Hebrew first and Greek secondly. I have met few Christians that read with understanding that big huge word AND in Genesis 1:2.... Then somebody decided to mess with the verb and plugged in the WORD *WAS* when that particular word is not what Moses penned when he was divinely given the Genesis account. And this earth BECAME... and notice there is a flood right there in Genesis 1:2...
Obviously the Heavenly Father knew there would be busy fingers filling in voids to deceive just like our present elected by the majority of the people, a deceiving president...
**Catholics often have not read the Bible that much growing up. We hear the Word each week at Church, and get the major ideas, but haven’t sat down to carefully read through passages and footnotes. **
This is the main reason that I would urge every Catholic to participate in a Scripture Study class — even if you know it’s not the best. You can learn so much and will soon be able to discern the best from the better or even the good. LOL!
Yes, there has been very “significant” debate. Among disbelieving academia there is simply a refusal to accept the plain meaning of the text. There are no linguistic grounds to deny the plain meaning. They simply resort to taking the words non-literally when the context does not indicate that. What Genesis 1 states is more than clear, it is just intellectually unacceptable to certain kinds of paradigmatic thinking. As for the science, I am no scientist ... but I know quite few. The bottom line is that Genesis 1 has no conceivable value as information to anyone of a uniformitarian and materialistic (in the philosophical sense) bent.
So, consider such things significant if you will. I don’t. Been there, done that with such folk.
Also, what you say about Genesis I versus Genesis II is just old higher critical boilerplate. The second is not simply “the same story” with changes. If you want to get into that, we can.
I don’t know what you mean by “until the translations are made from the source languages, there can and will be cultural translation creep.” Sorry, say it another way. I don’t get it.
Finally, the Bible is not a “specific scientific text” (I don’t know what you mean by “specific”). Of course it isn’t a scientific text. And, no, it isn’t about how we should relate to God and our fellow man, at least not primarily. It is about Christ, from beginning to end. Taken any other way, it cannot be understood rightly.
Well, you do have me on the Spanish.
I guess it depends on your parish. The monsignor at mine starts with the Morning Office, which is mostly prayers from scripture. He introduces daily Mass with comments on the saint or feast day, talking about the historical and religious significance of the celebration. His homilies link all the scriptural readings in the Mass, provide historical and cultural context, and then why all this stuff from long ago matters today. His combination of experience, education, erudition, wisdom, knowledge and serene faith make each eucharistic celebration both moving and memorable.
Clever translation, “And this earth BECAME ...”, but not believable. Also, a flood? Really? Are you sure about the identity of those who are deceiving?
Most people are not able to translate from the original Language. But Augustine did not have a printing press and Luther did not have a computer. The Jews had the scriptures in Greek were not required to know Hebrew in Jesus time. Jerrome’s Vulgate is a translation to Latin and the Douay Rheimes from Latin to English. A translation of a translation and parts another translation. I study the scripture in a translated version so I know what God says not what someone thinks he said a paraphrased version. The computer makes it easy to compare many versions too and look up commentary on the translation of the text. I also pray about the meaning too.
Are you LDS?
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.