Christians: practical use of Bible in spirituality

[prisoner6655321]

@Alan Smithee

This is the nub of the matter. I was specifically trying to learn where you see the dividing line between fiction and non-fiction. Would you be willing to consider some of these passages to be poetic? Allegorical? True in theology but not in historical detail? Why or why not?

I suppose it’s possible. I’ll have to study on it. I’m still a newbie Christian (even though I’ve been one since I was 5). I have to admit, the evidence of Genesis Chapter 2 Verse … wait just a second… my Bible says this for Verse 5…

And every pland of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

It sounded to me like it says that the plants are there, but it didn’t rain. Then in verse 6…

BUT there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Then it goes on to talk about God creating man. I’m reading the KJV. I still see that thinking non-chronologically works. Maybe those that wrote the version you are referencing Diogenes had it wrong? What version is that?

[JMS_CCT]

@Alan Smithee

According to Christian doctrine, the Word of God is Jesus Christ. According to Jewish tradition (which is what was presumably on the mind of both Isaiah and the Psalmist, though that doesn’t necessaraly exhaust the texts’ meaning), the Torah is the word of God. Where do you get the idea that the Christian canon is the word of God?
Unfortunately, my Hebrew isn’t up to evaluating the KJV’s translation of these verses. What is your basis for believing that the Hebrew does not suggest that we are the objects of God’s protection. Surely that reading is also compatible with Christian doctrine. (And if it isn’t, but is nevertheless the accurate reading of the Hebrew text, isn’t that so much the worse for Christian doctrine?)

Yes, Jesus was the “Word” (logos); the “divine expression” (Strong’s) of God in the flesh, (John 1:1-14). This is obvioulsy used in a symbolic sense, whereas “words” in Ps. 12. (from the Hebrew, “Imrah,” which means speech, or commandement"), just as obviously is to be taken literally.

The obvious difference in the two renderings (NIV, KJV) of Ps. 12 has to be because they are translated from two different texts: the NIV from the Septuagent (Greek version of the OT, attributed by most scholars to Origen); the KJV from the Hebrew Masoretic text.

In any case, would not proper English dictate that “words” are the subject here, not people? Putting Ps. 12 and Isaiah 40 together, here is what I believe it says: Man and his philosophies will come and go, but God’s word(s) will stand forever…they are…“settled in heaven” (Ps. 119:89)

People–in their flesh–are not going to be preserved, because “…flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 15:50) What is preserved is our spirit, which will be “clothed upon with our house which is from heaven…” (2 Cor. 5:2) We (the redeemed) will (on the day of redemption) get this physical/spiritual “house” (body), which will be “fashioned like unto his (Christ’s) glorious body”(the one he walked around in in his final 40 days on earth.) (Philippians 3:21)

I *know * all this because it has been preserved for me in the words of a book where I can read about it. I *believe it * because I am of the Spirit of God. Someone who is not of the Spirit of God can read the words and know them in an intellectual way, but will not believe/receive them because “the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him…” (1 Cor. 2:14) Humans are prone to put the cart in front of the horse. It won’t work. The first order of business is to get saved (accept Christ), and then “come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:4) The Bible puzzle will never be put together any other way.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@JMS@CCT

Yes, Jesus was the “Word” (logos); the “divine expression” (Strong’s) of God in the flesh, (John 1:1-14). This is obvioulsy used in a symbolic sense, whereas “words” in Ps. 12. (from the Hebrew, “Imrah,” which means speech, or commandement"), just as obviously is to be taken literally.

They’re both meant to be taken figuratively.

The obvious difference in the two renderings (NIV, KJV) of Ps. 12 has to be because they are translated from two different texts: the NIV from the Septuagent (Greek version of the OT, attributed by most scholars to Origen); the KJV from the Hebrew Masoretic text.

The NIV is not translated from the Septuagint but from the best original language texts. Specifically, the basis for the NIV translation of the OT is the Masoretic Text. Cite.

Origen did not translate the Septuagint. The Septuagint existed for at least 300 years before Origen was born. Origen did some revisions on it while comparing it to Hebrew manuscripts but the LXX is not “attrubuted” to Origen.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@prisoner6655321

I suppose it’s possible. I’ll have to study on it. I’m still a newbie Christian (even though I’ve been one since I was 5). I have to admit, the evidence of Genesis Chapter 2 Verse … wait just a second… my Bible says this for Verse 5…
It sounded to me like it says that the plants are there, but it didn’t rain. Then in verse 6…Then it goes on to talk about God creating man. I’m reading the KJV. I still see that thinking non-chronologically works. Maybe those that wrote the version you are referencing Diogenes had it wrong? What version is that?

No, they didn’t have it wrong and it’s not substantially different from the KJV. This is not an issue of translation. Even using the KJV, an attempt to read the second creation story non-chronologically is ad hoc, specious and unconvincing. It’s grasping at straws.

[JMS_CCT]

@Diogenes the Cynic

They’re both meant to be taken figuratively.

The NIV is not translated from the Septuagint but from the best original language texts. Specifically, the basis for the NIV translation of the OT is the Masoretic Text. Cite.

Origen did not translate the Septuagint. The Septuagint existed for at least 300 years before Origen was born. Origen did some revisions on it while comparing it to Hebrew manuscripts but the LXX is not “attrubuted” to Origen.

I stand corrected. You are right about the Septuagint not being the primary source of the NIV OT, but is was consulted. From your cite:

“The translators also consulted the more important early versions - the Septuagint; Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta; the Targums; and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading.”*

(was not Jerome’s “Latin Vulgate” translated, primarily, from Origen’s “Hexapla”?)

*Preface to the New International Version of the Bible.

The differences in translations, then, has to be driven from the different methods employed. The NIV translators–employing “textual criticism”-- from what I have seen in their treatment of the NT, take a lot of liberty in their renderings of the originals.

(According to the history I’ve read, Origen (and Clement and Philo before him) did more than “some” revisions on the Septuagint.)

[JMS_CCT]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
A word on the Timothy quotation…
Paul was only talking about the Tanakh. There was no New Testament yet. There weren’t even any gospels.
What sources are you getting your information from? The consensus among scholars places the writing of 2 Timothy, one of Paul’s last post-acts epistles, at AD 66-67. Most Scholars believe the majority of the disciples–those who wrote the four gospels–were martyrd by that time, so the gospels would have had to have been written.

No doubt Paul was speaking of the Moses and the Prophets in 2 Tim. 3:16, but he was certainly speaking of his own letters as well. If he wasn’t, then why would he make such statements as: “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things” (2 Tim. 2:7); and “…the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 14:37)?

[Polycarp]

Great.

So you’ve proven, to your own satisfaction, that the Bible is self-validating, and therefore to be trusted above all other things.

So it has an account of what Jesus said to do as regards “your neighbor” – which he illustrates with an account of one of the despised Samaritans, a woman caught in the act of screwing somebody besides her husband, and the story of the sheep and goats at the last judgment. And then we have Paul, and he very carefully picks out a bunch of people that he excludes from the church.

Now, if these are both explicitly and equally the Word of God, what we have is a schizoid god who doesn’t have a clue what he wants from people from book to book, but will smite thee mightily for disobeying him.

No wonder people are leaving Christianity in droves!

But it’s of course vitally important to those who live in fear of him that we carefully take every slightest excuse to sit in judgment over other people, just as Paul did, because he and not Jesus is the best example of how to live a Christian life.

Is there by any chance something wrong with this picture?

[JMS_CCT]

@Polycarp

Great.

So you’ve proven, to your own satisfaction, that the Bible is self-validating, and therefore to be trusted above all other things.

So it has an account of what Jesus said to do as regards “your neighbor” – which he illustrates with an account of one of the despised Samaritans, a woman caught in the act of screwing somebody besides her husband, and the story of the sheep and goats at the last judgment. And then we have Paul, and he very carefully picks out a bunch of people that he excludes from the church.

Now, if these are both explicitly and equally the Word of God, what we have is a schizoid god who doesn’t have a clue what he wants from people from book to book, but will smite thee mightily for disobeying him.

No wonder people are leaving Christianity in droves!

But it’s of course vitally important to those who live in fear of him that we carefully take every slightest excuse to sit in judgment over other people, just as Paul did, because he and not Jesus is the best example of how to live a Christian life.

Is there by any chance something wrong with this picture?

What’s wrong with this picture is your take on it. How bout a little scriptural documentation to back up all these statements?

If you want to see judgement in the New Testament, check out what happened to some folks in Acts 5 for breaking the rules. This isn’t at all what Paul’s message is about; quiet the contrary. It is about the end of the law and the beginning of grace (Romans 10:4), not judgment. No one, according to Paul’s revelation, is under God’s judgment presently, because we’re in a grace period (Romans 6:14; 11:6). Paul called it “the dispensation of the grace of God.” (Eph. 3:2) The entire reason for Paul’s revelation was to reveal this new dispensation, which he said was a “mystery,” not made known until he revealed it (Romans 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Colossians 1:25, 26)

The problem here, as I see it, is you are trying to discern scripture from a purely intellectual standpoint. Paul said that won’t fly: “For the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14)

.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@JMS@CCTW

was not Jerome’s “Latin Vulgate” translated, primarily, from Origen’s “Hexapla”?)

No, not for the Vulgate. He did do a preliminary translation based on the Hexapla but later decided that he would be better served by turning to the original Hebrew.

The differences in translations, then, has to be driven from the different methods employed. The NIV translators–employing “textual criticism”-- from what I have seen in their treatment of the NT, take a lot of liberty in their renderings of the originals.

Not nearly as much as the KJV does. It’s impossible to do a perfectly literal translation so some interpretation is required in order to render the the text. The NIV (actually not my favorite translation but still better than the KJV) does it with a fair amount of restraint and without the amount of blatant bias present in the KJV. It also uses much better manuscript sources for NT than the KJV which uses the greatly flawed Textus Recepticus.

(According to the history I’ve read, Origen (and Clement and Philo before him) did more than “some” revisions on the Septuagint.)

You’ve read incorrectly. Neither Philo nor Clement are alleged to have done any revisions to the Septuagint and Origen only corrected obvious errors.

What sources are you getting your information from? The consensus among scholars places the writing of 2 Timothy, one of Paul’s last post-acts epistles, at AD 66-67. Most Scholars believe the majority of the disciples–those who wrote the four gospels–were martyrd by that time, so the gospels would have had to have been written.

I shouldn’t have said there were no Gospels yet, they were completed by the time 2 Timothy was written, but there was no New Testament Canon and no recognition of the canonical gospels (or any other NT book) as “scripture” yet.

None of the gospels were written by disciples and none of them were written before 66 CE. Mark, the first gospel written, is currently favored as having been written during the latter part of the Jewish-Roman War (66-70 CE) but just before the destruction of the Temple (~68 or 69 CE). Some still date it later than 70. No objective scholarship places it before the late 60’s anymore.

The rest of the gospels were written even later than that (ranging from the 80’s for Matthew to 100 CE for John)

2 Timothy wasn’t written by Paul, it’s a 2nd cenury psuedoepigraphic work.

No doubt Paul was speaking of the Moses and the Prophets in 2 Tim. 3:16, but he was certainly speaking of his own letters as well. If he wasn’t, then why would he make such statements as: “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things” (2 Tim. 2:7); and “…the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 14:37)?

2 Timothy wasn’t written by Paul and claiming to have understanding is not the same as claiming to be writing scripture.

[Alan_Smithee]

Ok, so now that it’s the weekend, I was finally able to take the time to look at the Hebrew text closely when I’m actually awake. It’s interesting (as always). The Psalms, being poetry, are notoriously difficult to translate. One reason is that the pronouns (which often have unclear antecedants even in prose) are particularly vague in many places, and seem to switch person arbitrarily, even when refering to the same antecedant.

A perfectly plain and literal rendering of v. 7 (v. 8 in Heb.) of the Masoretic text would read: You, LORD, observe them; you protect us from this generation forever.

The verb in the first clause is tishmerem, with the root Shin-Mem-Resh: protect, observe, guard, keep (as a promise or commandment). The ending is a third-person masculine plural pronoun (Eng: them) that most likely (it seems to me) refers to the imrot (*words, opinions, promises [NRSV]) of the preceding verse.

The second verb is titsrenu, with the root Nun-Tsade-Resh, a synonym for the first: guard, preserve, keep, observe. Its ending is a first-person plural pronoun (Eng: us). A literal reading would indicate that it refers to the Pslamist and his fellows as being protected. (“You protect us from this generation forever.”)

Both the KJV and NIV (also the NRSV, for that matter) change the meaning of one or the other of the pronouns. As I noted, the poetic form of the Psalms makes clear identification of the antecedants very difficult. It is plausable (I think) that both pronound do in fact have the same antecedant, but this can’t be seen in English without changing one. There may be reasons (such as the normal conventions of Hebrew poetry) for thinking that this is in fact the case here. (It may, for example, be rare for pronouns in different halves of the same verse to refer to different antecedants. Hebrew poetry is based on parallelism.) I simply don’t know enough about Hebrew poetry to do more than speculate.

It is possible that the translators of the NIV and NRSV were influenced by LXX which, if I can decipher the footnotes to my Hebrew text correctly, in a few copies translated the object in the first clause as us. This was not noted in the NRSV footnotes, as I believe it would have been if the translators had not believed their translation to be supported by the Masoretic text itself.

In short, neither the KJV nor the NIV gives a plain, literal translation of the verse. This is not surprising in the case of poetry. The NIV reading has some ancient support that the KJV lacks. Both, however, are based directly on the Masoretic text. The obvious reading to me (not taking into account subtleties of Hebrew poetry) is that God keeps his promises, therefore we will be protected “from this generation” forever.