quote:

---

God creates man. Man sins. All hell breaks loose. God comes down to save man. Man kills the God-Man Jesus. Jesus' death on earth and Resurrection saves man. Man struggles to overcome sin through belief in Jesus. Jesus comes back for the 2nd time. Game over...

---

Doesn't sound like an omnipotent, allknowing, deity to me. This god deliberately makes things he knows he will destroy later because he programms them to not praise him. Why, for fun?

quote:

---

You could then also say Hebrew scripture cannot be understood in the 20th C.

---

I think this is a good point. A Israeli-Jewish professor of mine was referring to the dangers of post-hoc analysis, and she mentioned the Torah Code (Bible Code for Prots like me).

Among other things, she said that the modern Torah is written in relatively modern Hebrew. Hebrew is a living language, and the grammer, sentence structure, and even the alphabet have changed since Ancient times.

So even the Hebrew Bible is still a translation. Unless you specifically studied ancient Hebrew and only read photocopies of original parchment, lay off the translation isn't scripture argument.

Mustardag,

You are almost asking a fitting question...

Romans 9:19-25

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

quote:

---

No reading a translation (not limited to one) of anything is reading the thing (understanding the idea). The thing which is read is merely an expression of an thought in a particular language. A translation is not "someone's translation"

---

Your above quote could not be more wrong. In any translation, there exists a certain amount of interpretation. There is not a one-to-one correspondance between words in different languages, therefore interpretation becomes necessary. You are, therefore, reading someone else's interpretation of the text, and not the text itself.

quote:

---

You are, therefore, reading someone else's interpretation of the text, and not the text itself.

---

You present your interpretation of the text on this board quite frequently...why is your translation of the source material superior to the translations that I read?

quote:

---

You present your interpretation of the text on this board quite frequently...why is your translation of the source material superior to the translations that I read?

---

My interpretation *isn't* superior and I never claimed that it was, it's only my own interpretation. But if you can't read the original text, how can you know if my interpretation is accurate or not?

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 12/14/2005 10:02a).]

quote:

---

So this "movement" includes "most fundamentalists"? How do you know it's not a movement of about 100 people?

---

I think we probably have different ideas that come to mind when we here the word fundamentalist.

to me fundamentalism means any anti-modern and/or biblically literalist Protestant Christians.

I would guess there are anywhere from a few hundred thousand to a million of them in the united states they are a small minority in the overall christian community.

I know its not a movement of only a hundred people and if you have never heard of it then your not a fundamentalist so congratulations thats a good thing.

quote:

---

But if you can't read the original text, how can you know if my interpretation is accurate or not?

---

I can do a comparison with your interpretation, other interpretations, and my own studies to make that determination. One does not need to be able to read scripture in its original language to understand said scripture. They only need to satisfy that requirement in order to appease those who insist it is necessary.

quote:

---

I can do a comparison with your interpretation, other interpretations, and my own studies to make that determination

---

And how do you know that the other interpretations are accurate?

quote:

---

And how do you know that the other interpretations are accurate?

---

How do you know that yours is?

quote:

---

How do you know that yours is?

---

I'll be happy to answer your question once you have answered mine.

See that's the funny thing about a question like this, eventually you must retreat to faith built upon your existential experience and spiritual understanding. So we can keep asking these 'root cause' type of questions in an attempt to see if one of the two parties in the conversation makes a mistake in the presentation of our arguments, or we can realize that ultimately it's folly to conclude one must have the ability to correctly translate the original scripture in order to understand its meaning. The key word there is 'correctly', and you or I can architect our arguments such that we can never know what that actually means.

The overall point I was trying to make is that an assertion that one must be able to translate scripture from its original text in order to understand it is incorrect.

quote:

---

See that's the funny thing about a question like this, eventually you must retreat to faith built upon your existential experience and spiritual understanding. So we can keep asking these 'root cause' type of questions in an attempt to see if one of the two parties in the conversation makes a mistake in the presentation of our arguments, or we can realize that ultimately it's folly to conclude one must have the ability to correctly translate the original scripture in order to understand its meaning. The key word there is 'correctly', and you or I can architect our arguments such that we can never know what that actually means.

---

This is the whole point Yeshua was making when He said "Call no man 'rabbi.'" It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to be our own rabbi, and see for ourselves -- not to rely on someone else to interpret for us.

quote:

---

I haven't forgotten Greek. The scriptures were only translated into Greek, not originally written in Greek.

---

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that a minority of scholars believe the scriptures were only translated into Greek, not originally written in Greek.

One link: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/New_Testament




[This message has been edited by setsmachine (edited 12/14/2005 11:54a).]

quote:

---

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that a minority of scholars believe the scriptures were only translated into Greek, not originally written in Greek

---

Is truth established by the majority? If enough people believe a lie, does the lie become truth?

I never said that majority = truth. However, both Greek primacy and Aramaic primacy are theories, and by far most scholars working with the materials would say that Greek is the original language of the New Testament, and if not all, then all but a couple of books.

quote:

---

and by far most scholars working with the materials would say that Greek is the original language of the New Testament

---

What scholars? Christian scholars? Jewish scholars? Who?

Well, I can't say that I can give you the names of every person who thinks the New Testament was originally written in Greek. The source I quoted used those words, not me. I own two books that happened to be sitting next to my desk right now, and I can confirm that both Raymond Brown and Stephen Harris believe in Greek primacy. But surely you'll agree that those who think the NT was originally written in Hebrew are in the minority, right?

Out of curiosity, do we today have an Aramaic NT that some believe was the basis for the Greek writings? Are there English translations today that are only from the Aramaic? Just curious.

quote:

---

Overall, the only book of the NT for which there is any significant possible evidence of an Aramaic original is Matthew. But even then, there are good contrary arguments. But for the rest of the NT, the evidence strongly supports what is generally taught and believed in the Church, that the NT was originally written in Greek. It is for this reason that so many in Church history have taken the time to learn Greek.

---

quote:

---

Unique characteristics such as idioms and colloquialisms make it impossible for an accurate translation of the meaning of the original Language. Therefore, the translations should be used for, the spiritual guidance of the believers, but not for the formulation of dogmatical teaching of the Church. This is why it cannot be said that the translations are "the inspired word of God". Only the original language is "the inspired word of God."

---

Boy, the question of original language of the new testament is quite the can of worms.

Well, it's always been my impression that just about everyone believes the NT was written in Greek, but clearly Bracy believes otherwise, and states it as fact. However, it's my impression that Bracy believes differently than alot of people on this board on many different subjects, and I don't think he minds.

Where did those quotes come from?

quote:

---

The common language spoken in the time of Jesus was Aramaic. However, the original text of the New Testament was most likely written in Koine Greek, the vernacular dialect in first-century Roman provinces, and has since been widely translated into other languages, most notably Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. (However, some of the church fathers seem to imply that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or more likely Aramaic, and there is another contention that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek by Luke. Neither view holds much support among contemporary scholars, who argue that the literary quality of Matthew and Hebrews suggests that they were composed directly in Greek, rather than being translated.)

It is notable that many books of the New Testament, especially the gospel of Mark and the book of Revelation, are written in relatively poor Greek. They are far from the refined Attic or Classical Greek one finds composed by the higher classes, ruling elites, and trained philosophers of the time. Relative exceptions to this include the gospels of Luke and John and the Acts of the Apostles, the latter probably written or redacted by the same person who wrote or redacted Luke.

A very small minority of scholars consider the Aramaic version of the New Testament to be the original and believe the Greek is a translation.

---

the answer to the question is "no."

it was written by men, who are not perfect.

quote:

---

but clearly Bracy believes otherwise, and states it as fact.

---

Actually, I believe my exact words were:

"Yes, I believe that the 'New Testament' was originally written in Hebrew."

quote:

---

But surely you'll agree that those who think the NT was originally written in Hebrew are in the minority, right?

---

Again, what is the population base we're speaking of? If you're referring to non-Jewish, non-Torah-observant, Gentile Christian "bible scholars" then yes, they would be in the minority.

quote:

---

I haven't forgotten Greek. The scriptures were only translated into Greek, not originally written in Greek.

There's no lie in what I've said. If you can't read Hebrew, then all you've ever read is somebody else's translation of the scriptures, and not the scriptures themselves. That should be simple enough for anyone to understand.

---

The above is what I was referring to when I said that you stated it as fact.

Anyway, do you believe it is necessary that those who have worked with these texts in order to determine language primacy be Jewish, or Torah-observant? If so, I'm having trouble understanding why. I can't see why a, as you put it, "non-Jewish, non-Torah-observant, Gentile Christian 'bible scholar' " would have an agenda about this issue. Is there a reason they would not want to conclude that the NT was originally written in Greek? Or do you think they just have not looked into the issue enough? Why is this essential?

quote:

---

Anyway, do you believe it is necessary that those who have worked with these texts in order to determine language primacy be Jewish, or Torah-observant?

---

I don't believe they need to be Jewish, but I *do* believe they need to be Torah-observant.

In any case, my statement was in reference to establishing majority/minority of Bible scholars. If your test sample is made up of "scholars" who attended a Christian seminary, then I would expect most of them believe in a Greek original. If your test sample is made up of "scholars" who attended a Jewish yeshiva, I would expect the result to be different.

That's my question. Why would those in "Christian seminaries" come to a different conclusion than others? If they are both looking at the same evidence, I'm curious as to why either side would have an agenda. Why would some want to make a case for Greek and others for Hebrew? I know some Baptist seminary professors, and I don't think they would be opposed to Aramaic primacy if they thought the facts stood behind it.

By the way, I'm glad you're still up. This is a great distraction from a 10 page paper that's due tomorrow at noon.

Dang it, spoke too soon.

Hey Bracy, this topic got lost a couple of days ago, but I was still hoping for an answer to the question of why you think the scholars need to be Torah-observant. I'm really just curious; I'll let you answer and then leave the topic alone.

quote:

---

Hey Bracy, this topic got lost a couple of days ago, but I was still hoping for an answer to the question of why you think the scholars need to be Torah-observant. I'm really just curious; I'll let you answer and then leave the topic alone.

---

Because if they are not Torah-observant, then they are Torah-rebellious, and I wouldn't accept a interpretation of Torah from one who is in rebellion against it.

The Torah is the foundation for all of scripture. Unlike the other books of the bible, the Torah was received directly from God, therefore its canonicity is beyond question. All other books were received by inspiration, and in order to judge whether or not they are inspired, they must be found to be in agreement with Torah -- if they contradict the Torah, they cannot possibly be inspired.

So, if a bible "scholar" is not Torah-observant, then he is in rebellion against Torah, against all scripture, and against God Himself. Indeed, the Torah commands us not to listen to such a person.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 12/17/2005 5:48a).]

quote:

---

Doesn't sound like an omnipotent, allknowing, deity to me. This god deliberately makes things he knows he will destroy later because he programms them to not praise him. Why, for fun

---

Muster - The part you do not understand is that God gave man free will, including the will to sin. What man didn't see back then, and still in large part today does not see, is that there is a huge blowback from sin. The Good News is that there is a huge reward for us when we freely choose God, and not sin.

Well, that's interesting, and it doesn't make much sense to me, but thanks.

quote:

---

Well, that's interesting, and it doesn't make much sense to me, but thanks.

---

If you won't listen, why did you ask?

Won't listen? I had asked a couple of questions, you didn't answer and the topic was down at the bottom, so I asked once more, but I said that I would leave the topic alone. I wasn't trying to start back up a debate, I was just curious as to your answer. I have no idea how that means I won't listen.

It doesn't make sense to me that one must observe the Torah to do a linguistic study of ancient texts to determine original language. But, I still appreciate you answering.

Ahh, okay. My apologies, I misunderstood your response. The way it was worded, it sounded like a non-acceptance of my answer.

I'm just saying that I don't see how anyone with an anti-Torah bias can give a proper interpretation of Torah. Any interpretation they give is filtered through their anti-Torah bias. In the Torah, God told us if anyone tries to teach us to walk away from His commandments, we are not to listen to him. Therefore, any "scholar" who believes that we are no longer under Torah is not to be listened to. So when you say it "doesn't make sense" to you, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with God.

[This message has been edited by Bracy (edited 12/18/2005 3:32a).]