Augustine on the Need to Know Hebrew and Greek

TheSacredPage.com ^ | Thursday, March 18, 2010 | Michael Barber quoting St. Augustine

[freedumb2003]

>>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.<<

I am not sure where you are going with this. If you are not a scientist (thanks for the honesty — you have no idea how many do not admit that my friend), the I don’t know how you are applying the Genesis accounts to the scientific findings.

>>So, consider such things significant if you will. I don’t. Been there, done that with such folk.<<

Again, I am unsure on your point. Are you saying you have discussed this before and thus are absolved from repeating these discussion?

>>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.<<

Only if you insist on the Bible being the “Literal Word of God” — the only point is that those who say so must, buy definition reconcile GEnesis I and ii

>?>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.<<

You got me — that was badly translated from the English in my brain to the English in the post (a first in FR history!)

I merely meant that every translation from another language from Language 1 to Language 2 will and must have cultural implications that Language 2 cannot understand in the absence of significant anthropological study of Culture 1).

I stand by my “yom” example — a colloquial assignment of “yom” to the English “day” does not automatically render “yom” to “day.” And as a linguist you know I am right.

>>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.<<

Now we merely diverge on philosophy. Of course the Bible (OT and NT) lead to Christ. There are billions of Jews who take it as Holy Writ that The Talmud is the only nook that matters. I am unsure how my interpretation of the Bible differs from yours. Is not Christ’s primary message that we should love each other? Is not His concurrent message we should love God above all else? Christ never asked us to love Him (of course we do, but if you know a passage where He directs us to do so you got me) — He directed us to love all our brothers and sisters and God above all.

>>Well, you do have me on the Spanish.<<

No problemos amigo!

[Just mythoughts]

Clever translation, “And this earth BECAME ...”, but not believable. Also, a flood? Really? Are you sure about the identity of those who are deceiving?

Clever only if one is part of sowing the seeds of deception.... My KJV reads Genesis 1:2 And the earth *was* without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This is at least a thousand years before the Heavenly Father had to rid His earth of the co-mingling of heavenly bodies with the daughters of 'the' Adam. As per Genesis 6.

And Jeremiah recounts this flood that took place in Genesis 1:2, in Jeremiah 4:22-26, where the Heavenly Father says His people are foolish and 'sottish' which means stupid because thy have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge...

Would you like to chat more about who the deceivers are???

[freedumb2003]

You have the inquisitiveness and passion I wish I could muster.

IMHO, God wants us, His children, to pursue knowledge to our dying day.

God smiles on you — I really hope He chuckles at me from time to time... Humor is one of the great gifts God gave us.

[Just mythoughts]

No, I know very little about LDS doctrine, most of what I know are the threads posted frequently here I read occasionally. I am Christian and believe IITimothy 3:16 means what it says.

[reaganaut]

Your response sounded very much like the LDS doctrine that God could not create, He only organized matter of the Earth.

That is why I was wondering.

[the_daug]

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!

The period is made clear in Exodus Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

[freedumb2003]

>>And Jeremiah recounts this flood that took place in Genesis 1:2, in Jeremiah 4:22-26, where the Heavenly Father says His people are foolish and ‘sottish’ which means stupid because thy have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.<<

I am sorry, my friend, but there are no geological markers of a “worldwide flood.”

Floods in many places have been recorded (and thus projected to the entire world by primitive cultures). And there may have been one where Noah and family resided.

But even if you take the Old Testament literally, God is reluctant to mess with he Universe He created. He bent the rules from time to time to further His Plan, but there was always a lesson to be taken to heart by Hos Children.

I am not going to tell God “Hey! You can’t mess with Your Rules!” But I can echo what I believe to be His Response: “I gave you this Universe — discover it, document it, I Promise I won’t arbitrarily change the rules you discern.”

[freedumb2003]

>>The period is made clear in Exodus Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.<<

Again, if you substitute 1 for “x” you can argue “x=1”
It is a tautology.

[Just mythoughts]

Your response sounded very much like the LDS doctrine that God could not create, He only organized matter of the Earth. That is why I was wondering.

Our Heavenly Father can do anything He wills. But He promised us that He would forewarn us of His will.

It is Written in Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it NOT in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD; and there is none else.

These 'Hebrew' words in vain are the very same specific words used to describe what happened to this earth in Genesis 1:2. And the Heavenly Father just made it plain and simple that He did not create the earth in vain and without form it became that way.

And Isaiah 14:12- and Ezekiel 28:12- explain who caused the action when that 'morning star' rebelled.

[Just mythoughts]

I am sorry, my friend, but there are no geological markers of a “worldwide flood.” Floods in many places have been recorded (and thus projected to the entire world by primitive cultures). And there may have been one where Noah and family resided. But even if you take the Old Testament literally, God is reluctant to mess with he Universe He created. He bent the rules from time to time to further His Plan, but there was always a lesson to be taken to heart by Hos Children. I am not going to tell God “Hey! You can’t mess with Your Rules!” But I can echo what I believe to be His Response: “I gave you this Universe — discover it, document it, I Promise I won’t arbitrarily change the rules you discern.”

Did I say anything about a "worldwide flood". We are not told in Genesis 1:2 how much of this earth was under water, but Jeremiah 4 says nothing survived that flood of Genesis 1:2.

All this was before the 6 days (as Peter says a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.... IIPeter 3:8) of creation. And no flesh being lived in the flesh even 'one' day with the Lord, Methuselah came the closest at 969 years. And in Genesis 6:3 the Heavenly Father limited flesh beings life span to 120 years.

The majority of people claiming or accused of taking the Old Testament literal have NO clue what is actually said, just like that flood described in Genesis 1:2, long before the flood that Noah and his family were saved.

[Biggirl]

Why is that?

[mikrofon]

Hey, it's all Αγγλικά to me...

[Salvation]

**IMHO, God wants us, His children, to pursue knowledge to our dying day.**

Absolutely agree. With the help of the Holy Spirit!

[martin_fierro]

Hey, it's all Αγγλικά to me...

ΛOΛ!

[freedumb2003]

Hey, it's all Αγγλικά to me..

[Godzilla]

Can Holy Scripture be translated accurately by ANYONE without a thorough knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and of course, Latin?

I think you misphrased the question. One cannot even begin to translate from one language to another without knowledge of both on the scale of the Bible.

That said - I think you may have wanted to say can the Bible be understood by anyone without knowledge of Greek, Hebrew. I would say yes, however greater depth and richness of the text is encountered when one can delve into the Greek/Hebrew to get at those meanings and context.

[circlecity]

"That said - I think you may have wanted to say can the Bible be understood by anyone without knowledge of Greek, Hebrew. I would say yes, however greater depth and richness of the text is encountered when one can delve into the Greek/Hebrew to get at those meanings and context."

I think you are only partially correct. Yes, if all one had were a few select books of the Bible then knowledge of the original languages would give greater understanding. But the Bible interprets itself. When one has the entire Bible they can use it all to understand the parts. Does it take work, a good concordance, extensive cross-referencing and intense study of the entire text? Yes, it does. Nothing this valuable comes easy. But the supernatural properties of the the entire whole to interpret the component parts is just awesome. You can study the Word for a lifetime and still not come close to plumbing the entire depths - But, glory, what a lifetime spent.

[Belteshazzar]

Just mythoughts wrote:
“And Jeremiah recounts this flood that took place in Genesis 1:2, in Jeremiah 4:22-26, where the Heavenly Father says His people are foolish and ‘sottish’ which means stupid because thy have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge...”

No, I don’t think he did. He was describing the situation in early 6th century B.C. Israel (Judah plus the northern kingdom’s territories that had recently come under Jerusalem’s rule in the reign of Josiah) as being like that of the disorder and emptiness of the world at its creation.

Let me guess: LDS?

[reaganaut]

He says he isn’t but the doctrine is off, and is very similar to LDS, so...

[Belteshazzar]

freedumb2003 wrote:
“>>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.<<

Only if you insist on the Bible being the “Literal Word of God” — the only point is that those who say so must, buy definition reconcile GEnesis I and ii.”

OK, I insist on the Bible being the “Literal Word of God.” Does something special happen now that I’ve said that? If it isn’t that, then it is lying about itself. So, it either is what it says, or it isn’t. I would aver that it is.

As for the differences between Genesis I and II, by which I take you to mean Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Genesis 2:4b-5:1, I would say that each reflects a different document with which Moses was dealing as the divinely inspired editor/redactor. The first deals with the creation of all things. The second zeroes in on the creation of mankind, the crown of God’s creation. This is indicated by the title of each separate document given not at the beginning of each, as our culture demands, but at the end of each, as the culture then was in the habit of doing. This practice of titling the document at the end is probably indicative also of the medium and mode of the written material, that is, clay tablets and cuneiform writing.

The “title” in the parlance of Sumerology/Assyriology would be known as the “catch-line.” The catchline of 2:4a lacks an identified person, indicating most likely that the author is God Himself. The catchline of 5:1 identifies Adam, who is most likely the author of the preceding verses.

Again, one can dispute the truth of what Genesis I and II assert, but the plain meaning of the text is really not difficult to ascertain, even if you don’t know Hebrew. My point was simply that certain linguistic experts - and experts they are! - simply don’t accept the plain meaning of the words, and so resort to other explanations. Certain scientific experts - and experts they are as well! - simply do not accept what the plain meaning of the text would imply for the means, mode, and chronology of the creation (i.e. several thousands, perhaps ten of thousands of years versus several billion years).

When I say, “been there, done that,” with such people, I mean that I have been in on such discussions with such credentialed experts ... and more than once. I know their arguments. I choose, simply, to believe the plain meaning of the Genesis text.