[QUOTE=Helen’s Eidolon]
Oh, and. In reading over the previous thread, I thought maybe raindog would like to know that someone who does have a PhD-level knowledge of ancient Greek (ie, me) does not think arsenokoitai can be unproblematically translated as ‘homosexuals’. Feel better now?
[/QUOTE]
Let me ask you…
I am [genuinely] curious if this knowledge includes the Christian Greek Scriptures; and if so, what is your knowledge of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures?
[QUOTE=Miller]
So what? I didn’t have to be in the ring in '74 to know that Ali beat Foreman. I didn’t have to post in the thread in ‘04 to know that you were entirely unable to defend your position against Diogenes’ arguments.
[/quote]
That should make me easy pickings for you then, huh?
So, in a word that’s “no”, huh? 
“Miller, I served with Diogenes. I knew Diogenes. Diogenes was a friend of mine. Miller, you’re no Diogenes.” 
In all seriousness, I generally avoid the Pit. It’s not my cup of tea. I don’t like the name calling, and the general witlessness. It requires too much of [my]self.
What drew me in was Lightray’s post. Had he (she?) posted that all or most people don’t ‘read their bible’ and then try to ‘score biblical points’ we’d be singing kumbaya. IME and opinion, most people don’t read the bible—both atheists and theists alike. That doesn’t keep many of them from posting as though they do/did. The results are manifest.
No, Lightray singled out a specific group as being particularly guilty. When he said,"…That particular canard is based off a very poor translation of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians…" I was interested in his thoughts. I have around a dozen translations at home and another 6 or so available online and I’ve spent some time with this.
Surely someone with the cojones to finish with, “… I should be used to the fact that people in America have been conditioned to think they can score Biblical points in arguments without actually having read the Bible, but I’d expected a little better on the 'Dope. Even in the Pit…” has some knowledge about this subject, yes? I practically saw it as an invitation to explore it further.
Yet, as is often the case, people issue checks that their keyboards can’t cash. He called someone out, and when they accepted, he took the high road of cowardice; a well traveled road apparently familiar to jsgoddess and others.
If you’re going to talk smack, you should probably be ready to walk your talk. That much I can say about Diogenes. If I came into Diogenes’s thread and called into question his manhood and winked at his girlfriend we’d already be 50 posts into a GD thread that had my name in the title. I always cringe when a fresh faced guest barges into GD full of enthusiasm, and Diogenes gives him the “you’re not in Kansas anymore” warning. The difference, of course, is that Diogenes is willing and able to back it up.
Not so this group, huh? Despite all the tortured analogies, they share in common the simple, “no, thanks.”
Now fork over that lunch money. I got things to do. 
[QUOTE=Antinor01]
Can you please answer the question as to if your views/research/etc have changed since the last time?
[/QUOTE]
What views are you specifically referring to?
[QUOTE=the raindog]
What views are you specifically referring to?
[/QUOTE]
Any of them. You’ve asked people to engage in a debate that has been done before. People seem to want to know if you have anything new to add to that debate since then or if you just want to go over the same ground.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
Let me ask you…
I am [genuinely] curious if this knowledge includes the Christian Greek Scriptures; and if so, what is your knowledge of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures?
[/QUOTE]
If she doesn’t have any, does that invalidate her translation?
If so, isn’t that evidence that you want people to translate according to your own biases instead of according to the plain meaning of the text?
Therein lies the rub. What is the “plain meaning” of an ancient text? In a thousand years, will people argue over whether a fag is a person or a cigarette? To clarify, you need lots of references, texts in which the meaning can be clarified by context.
Many’s the time I’ve thought history would have been much improved if Saul of Tarsus had taken that left turn at Albequerque, and missed the exit to the Damascas Turnpike.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Therein lies the rub. What is the “plain meaning” of an ancient text? In a thousand years, will people argue over whether a fag is a person or a cigarette? To clarify, you need lots of references, texts in which the meaning can be clarified by context.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think translation of the bible should require anything but a knowledge of the language, and knowledge of language includes context for that language. What it doesn’t need to include is translating the language to match what the person wants it to say in the first place.
Just because your translation fits your preconceptions is no proof that your translation is correct, that is undeniably true. But it doesn’t mean your translation is faulty, either. It means your objectivity is weak, and your scholarship is flawed, but even that doesn’t make you wrong, necessarily. Many’s the time a scholar makes a WAG and is right.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I don’t think translation of the bible should require anything but a knowledge of the language, and knowledge of language includes context for that language. What it doesn’t need to include is translating the language to match what the person wants it to say in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to include context for that language at that time. Imagine an archaeologist in the year 4500 finds a perfectly preserved issue of the Washington Post from this year. Even if they have a good grasp of the basics of the (long-dead) English language, how are they to translate a headline like “Obama Takes Iowa”? Even worse, if they were to find still-good archive storage of the SDMB and read the response to that sort of headline I saw in one thread, a joking “I hope he doesn’t…I’d miss Ames and Waterloo”. Idioms, nonce-words, words that have several meanings, not all of which we necessarily know, words that have nuances of meaning that we may be missing because we’re not familiar enough with exactly HOW they spoke or wrote at the time…I don’t think it’s possible to read an ancient language, even one that’s still spoken in some form (Koine Greek vs. Modern Greek, f’rinstance), in exactly the way it was intended to be read by its author.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
I don’t think it’s possible to read an ancient language, even one that’s still spoken in some form (Koine Greek vs. Modern Greek, f’rinstance), in exactly the way it was intended to be read by its author.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you there.
Though he won’t answer my direct questions, I was hoping this thread’s resident masochist would at least say if he thinks that biblical translations have to be shaped by religious belief or at least extensive religious study before they have any merit.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Just because your translation fits your preconceptions is no proof that your translation is correct, that is undeniably true. But it doesn’t mean your translation is faulty, either. It means your objectivity is weak, and your scholarship is flawed, but even that doesn’t make you wrong, necessarily. Many’s the time a scholar makes a WAG and is right.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you, definitely. I’m trying to find out if raindog will only accept translations from certain people who already share his biases. He’s not likely to answer, just as he hasn’t answered any other question I’ve put to him.
[QUOTE=Antinor01]
Any of them. You’ve asked people to engage in a debate that has been done before. People seem to want to know if you have anything new to add to that debate since then or if you just want to go over the same ground.
[/QUOTE]
Well, frankly, I wasn’t that interested in the debate. My interested was piqued by Lightray’s post.
Actually, I would have something new to add to the debate. Having read the threads that deal with this topic going back 4 or 5 years or so, it seems clear to me that the subject has never been comprehensively covered.
That’s not an indictment of this MB, or any of it’s members. It’s simply the nature of MBs in general. Invariably, someone starts a non or semi-specific thread and from there it splinters almost immediately. The thread jsgoddess referenced is an excellent example. Rather than deal with the topic thoroughly, several sub-topics emerged with the “A loving God wouldn’t condemn homosexuality” sentiment being prominent enough to start a new thread. (and derail the precursor)
So yea, I would say that there is a fair amount of new material on both sides of the discussion that could be added to gain a fuller understanding of the texts in question.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I agree with you, definitely. I’m trying to find out if raindog will only accept translations from certain people who already share his biases. He’s not likely to answer, just as he hasn’t answered any other question I’ve put to him.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not as if I’m not answering you.
But you are no more Helen’s Eidolon’s surrogate as Diogenes’s.
Your posts in this thread are from the safety of the bleachers, and rather than bring something akin to knowledge to the table, you’re giving reasons why you shouldn’t have to. (and apparently why others shouldn’t have to either)
On the basis of Helen’s Eidolon’s credentials alone, this discussion appears to be over before it started. Let her speak for herself. For all we know, she may not have a background in the Christian Greek Scriptures, or have no interest in that kind of discussion.
If she does, I’d be willing to discuss it with her. If she takes the position you appear to be taking—namely “this is my PhD level interpretation; End Of Story”---- expect me to be equally uninspired.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
It’s not as if I’m not answering you.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it’s exactly as if you aren’t answering me, what with the, you know, failure to answer me and all.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
That should make me easy pickings for you then, huh?
[/quote]
Not at all. To extend my metaphor, just because I can see that Ali beat Foreman, doesn’t mean that I can beat Foreman.
Yes, that’s rather the point I was making.
the raindog, you seem to keep trying to call me (and others) out. Follow your own requirements: put up, or shut up.
If you think someone should start a GD thread. Go. Start one yourself.
Maybe this time you’ll get by without resorting to appeals to authority, or all the other logical fallicies you seem to be fond of – such as the ad hominem you’re working on Helen’s Eidolon, attempting to make the argument about her credentials instead of addressing the premise of her translation – but I doubt it.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Not at all. To extend my metaphor, just because I can see that Ali beat Foreman, doesn’t mean that I can beat Foreman.
[/quote]
While I don’t agree with your assessment of my exchanges with Diogenes and Polycarp, I can also tell you that was never my focus.
I had/have an interest in the bible and my only interest was that discussion.
And I can tell you that our paths will cross again.
Miller, you’re a good sport, and I can tell you [honestly] that I always enjoy reading your posts.
Even when you’re wrong.
[QUOTE=the raindog]
Your posts in this thread are from the safety of the bleachers, and rather than bring something akin to knowledge to the table, you’re giving reasons why you shouldn’t have to. (and apparently why others shouldn’t have to either).
[/QUOTE]
And yours consist of taunting everyone to start a thread that meets your specs. I don’t live in Surrealityville with you. You want a thread that makes the points you feel should be made? Start it yourself. Otherwise respond to the questions that have been put to you and STFU about threads you know we won’t be starting.
[QUOTE=Lightray]
the raindog, you seem to keep trying to call me (and others) out. Follow your own requirements: put up, or shut up.
If you think someone should start a GD thread. Go. Start one yourself.
Maybe this time you’ll get by without resorting to appeals to authority, or all the other logical fallicies you seem to be fond of – such as the ad hominem you’re working on Helen’s Eidolon, attempting to make the argument about her credentials instead of addressing the premise of her translation – but I doubt it.
[/QUOTE]
We started this whole set of exchanges when I challenged your post, and asked you to expand your thoughts, right?
To which you responded, “no thanks.”
I was asking you. You made a point I was interested in, and now others should do your heavy lifting for you?
“raindog, please go to GD and find someone to adopt my post In The Pit?”
Is that the deal?
As to Helen’s Eidolon, I’ve done nothing of the sort. I am genuinely curious about her interest and background. Go back and look at the only post I’ve made to her.