02 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf that's your "point", it's trivial. The NT has probably been more painstakingly worked over by translators than any book in history. There's little debate anymore on substantive differences in the established translations that have been around for a 100 years or more. I prersonally use the American Standard Version, but any of a half a dozen are acceptable. If they differ, those differences can be compared and discussed.
Keep your ad hominems and abuses to yourself.
My point is simple - when reading documents written almost 2,000 years ago in a dead language you cannot simply assume that the English translation (and why should you trust the particular translation in the first place?) will give you the sense that a person at the time would have taken from it. Figuri ...[text shortened]... oes take some expertise, yes.
This reasoning isn't rocket science - it's just common sense.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThe point isn't whether there is a dispute or not (and maybe you're underestimating points of contention here) - the point is that there are many occasions when such expertise is needed in interpreting the Gospels.
EDIT: There's little dispute in any of those areas, at least so far as would be relevant to an understanding of the Gospels.
Of course, there's nothing to stop a person interpreting the Gospels as he thinks fit and acting accordingly. But then it's no longer about what the Gospels really mean - just what they mean to that person.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderEven if the translations agree, there will still be sections that require a historical understanding of Jewish culture and language. Why does Jesus say "Call no man 'Father'?" What did Jesus mean by "If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you" in Jn 6?
If that's your "point", it's trivial. The NT has probably been more painstakingly worked over by translators than any book in history. There's little debate anymore on substantive differences in the established translations that have been around for a 100 years or more. I prersonally use the American Standard Version, but any of a half a dozen are acceptable. If they differ, those differences can be compared and discussed.
Differences in interpretation can lead to substantive differences in theology (and, ultimately, personal action) in many NT cases.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerA vague claim of this sort is typical of you. You haven't given a single reason why a message preached to the common Man in clear terms needs any special "expertise" to understand. Knowing the particular historical context is somewhat helpful, but as the message was presumably meant to be universal, "expertise" in Palestinian history and NT Greek is not required.
The point isn't whether there is a dispute or not (and maybe you're underestimating points of contention here) - the point is that there are many occasions when such expertise is needed in interpreting the Gospels.
Of course, there's nothing to stop a person interpreting the Gospels as he thinks fit and acting accordingly. But then it's no longer about what the Gospels really mean - just what they mean to that person.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo what?? Explanations for such things require no vast knowledge of all the intricacies of Jewish social life in the 1st Century.
Even if the translations agree, there will still be sections that require a historical understanding of Jewish culture and language. Why does Jesus say "Call no man 'Father'?" What did Jesus mean by "If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you" in Jn 6?
Differences in interpretation can lead to substantive differences in theology (and, ultimately, personal action) in many NT cases.
It has been a common ploy of High Priests throughout history (and probably before written history) to claim that they have "secret" knowledge that only they can understand. And it is always their duty to give these pronouncements to the masses who must follow them blindly. The RCC is simply following in the footsteps that shamans walked in for eons.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSome parts of the Gospel are clear enough (the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son), some are not (Jn 6).
A vague claim of this sort is typical of you. You haven't given a single reason why a message preached to the common Man in clear terms needs any special "expertise" to understand. Knowing the particular historical context is somewhat helpful, but as the message was presumably meant to be universal, "expertise" in Palestinian history and NT Greek is not required.
In what sense do you mean the message was meant to be "universal"? The Gospels were written by people in a particular culture, for fellow-Christians from the same cultural background.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderUnless you have some knowledge of those intricacies, you will very probably be off the mark with any explanation you come up with.
So what?? Explanations for such things require no vast knowledge of all the intricacies of Jewish social life in the 1st Century.
It has been a common ploy of High Priests throughout history (and probably before written history) to claim that they have "secret" knowledge that only they can understand. And it is always their duty to give these pr ...[text shortened]... ow them blindly. The RCC is simply following in the footsteps that shamans walked in for eons.
Your whole "High Priest" speech is hypocritical. Would you support the appointment of a person with no legal expertise whatsoever to the Supreme Court?
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWait a tic. Aren't you the same person who argues that even the Constitution needs to be considered within the time in which it was written? Do we need a Secret Decoder Ring to understand it, as well?
If that's your "point", it's trivial. The NT has probably been more painstakingly worked over by translators than any book in history. There's little debate anymore on substantive differences in the established translations that have been around for a 100 years or more. I prersonally use the American Standard Version, but any of a half a dozen are acceptable. If they differ, those differences can be compared and discussed.
02 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't think so. no1 is not clearly an originalist - he seems to subscribe the "living document" view (atleast the constitutional law experts he's cited think so).
Wait a tic. Aren't you the same person who argues that even the Constitution needs to be considered within the time in which it was written?
EDIT: OTOH, I am extremely interested to see if he will accept the interpretations of a non-expert on the law. I remember one particularly heated conversation a long time ago on the topic of "Abortion is Murder" where he went into the legal definition of 'murder'. And I also remember him saying that the reason he chose law as a career was for its preciseness in language - something we poor ordinary mortals know nothing about, apparently.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe issue is not whether the interpretation of a document can be informed by knowledge of its particular historical context (of course it can and should be) but whether that historical context can be understood only be "experts". I see no reason why people who aren't lawyers can't argue points of constitutional law and I don't reject their point of views out of hand by saying "I'm a lawyer and you're not". But it seem to me those of you who believe in "Secret Decoder Ring" theories do just that.
Wait a tic. Aren't you the same person who argues that even the Constitution needs to be considered within the time in which it was written? Do we need a Secret Decoder Ring to understand it, as well?
02 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy point of view does not fit neatly into such categories. I think those parts of the Constitution that were supposed to be interpretated in a literal fashion should be, but I don't think there's many portions that were so meant to be. I read it as I read most documents; the purpose has to be ascertained by a reading of the text and other evidence as to what the authors intended.
I don't think so. no1 is not clearly an originalist - he seems to subscribe the "living document" view (atleast the constitutional law experts he's cited think so).
EDIT: OTOH, I am extremely interested to see if he will accept the interpretations of a non-expert on the law. I remember one particularly heated conversation a long time ago on the top iseness in language - something we poor ordinary mortals know nothing about, apparently.
When people speak in legal terms and give incorrect definitions in the law, I correct them. Law is often a precise language. That does not mean that the average layman cannot understand it; I've never said in these forums anything remotely suggesting that.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHActually, I oppose most gun control laws as infringements on a basic and fundamental right that was accepted by the Framers (that of self-defense). Sorry to disappoint your conception that I believed in every position popularly called "liberal".
For some reason, I was under the impression that he held gun ownership as outdated. Maybe I am wrong.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderQuite the contrary: it is comforting to know there are lawyers out there who understand the germane issue.
Actually, I oppose most gun control laws as infringements on a basic and fundamental right that was accepted by the Framers (that of self-defense). Sorry to disappoint your conception that I believed in every position popularly called "liberal".
However, you can't have it both ways. You cannot acknowledge the need for contextual understanding on one hand (law) and dismiss it on the other (Bible). An SDR is not required for basic Bible doctrine, however, the greater doctrines require exegetical study and can only be properly understood and applied by spirit-filled believers.
02 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't dismiss the need for contextual understanding of the Bible; I just don't believe that such understanding is only possible for "believers" or "experts".
Quite the contrary: it is comforting to know there are lawyers out there who understand the germane issue.
However, you can't have it both ways. You cannot acknowledge the need for contextual understanding on one hand (law) and dismiss it on the other (Bible). An SDR is not required for basic Bible doctrine, however, the greater doctrines require exegetical study and can only be properly understood and applied by spirit-filled believers.