Re: POTM nomination: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in ...

On 9 Jul, 22:33, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I nominate this for Post of the Month.  Granted, it is not about any
earth-shaking topic, but I learned things, and rarely do I see a point
covered so completely.

Seconded.




On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 04:08:23 -0700, Burkhard wrote:
On Jul 9, 6:29 am, Suzanne <leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 8, 6:09 am, Arkalen <skiz...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(2011/07/08 19:23), Suzanne wrote:
On Jul 5, 4:16 am, Ernest Major<{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
In message
<cc320723-8fc0-4985-b75a-cf2fee0c1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Suzanne<leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx>  writes

On Jul 2, 1:23 pm, TomS<TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
"On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 10:23:49 -0700 (PDT), in article
<62f4cca8-079b-4dec-a5be-0fa2e0e4e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Suzanne stated..."

On Jun 30, 11:09 am, Mark Isaak<eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
[...snip...]
How far are you willing to go do defend your interpretation of
the Bible? Is it important enough to reject God?

Mark, I've talked to you for years. I would not ever accept the
stuff that you think is right about "the rocks."  I don't have
"an interpretation" of the Bible.
I have the Bible and what it says.  You need to know about the
Rock of Ages.

To identify what you think with the Word of God is nothing less
than hubris. And that is putting it mildly.

This sounds interesting....
What did I do for you to think I am haughty, prideful and
arrogant?

Passing over the issues with rephrasing hubris as haughtiness,
pride and arrogance ...

Many things. For example you described a Christian song as a "song
of an Antichrist nature". Or you could look at the material quoted
above.

In general your belief that your interpretation of the Bible (which
you arrogantly deny is an interpretation) trumps what you are
supposed to believe are the works of God is arrogant.

The three words that addressed hubris were in the dictionary.

A song that tears down the biblical account is not exactly a
Christian song,
and since it contradicts the recorded words of Jesus, I would call
it certainly
anti the Christ.

When some of you started insisting that when I translated something,
that it was "interpreting," that didn't sound accurate. So I looked
up the word and it has several definitions. But then I looked to see
what translators themselves
think of someone claiming that they are "interpreting" as opposed to
their own
word of "translating." I presented it to all of you, and provided
the reference
from the actual translators, themselves.

And you were told, repeatedly, that we aren't talking about
"interpreting" as in "oral translation". We're talking about
"interpreting" as in "determining the meaning of something". Do you
deny that "determining the meaning of something" is one meaning of
interpretation ? And do you deny that translating requires knowing
what the text you're translating means ?

The words "interpret" and "translate" overlap in the points that you are
making above. They are like the words "canines" and "dogs." All dogs are
canines, but not all canines are dogs. Randy came up with something that
needed interpretation to be understood. He found a verse that says the
world doesn't move. It truly is the translation put into English. But he
 understood it as meaning that the universe revolves around the earth,
rather than that the earth revolves in and/ or around in the universe.
Now I interpreted and I said, that the verse means that the earth is not
moved "from it's orbit." In other words, it is placed in an orbit and it
does not move from it's orbit. In that case,
I was interpreting. Do you see the difference? The words that the earth
does not move truly are the translation of the originals. But qualifying
what that
means with respect to where the earth is, was an interpretation. OK, now
let's make it a little bit harder...

Suppose that the Bible says "Jesus had all of his ducks in a row all the
time,"
in the Greek. Now, suppose that idiom only exists in Greek, and I knew
about it's existence as being an idiom. And suppose there was no
equivalent idiom in English like it. I would "translate" the meaning as
being "Jesus had all his things organized all the time." Obviously I
didn't  mention ducks because I was conveying the meaning of the
idiomatic phrase, and not the word for word conveying of the ducks since
it would make no sense in English if we did not have that idiom. That
idiom translated into words that could be conveyed
to mean exactly what someone would understand the idiom to have meant in
the Greek. So it could be translated in truth to mean what I had
rendered it to mean. Now, if someone did not  understand that we know
the meaning of
the idiomatic expression, then they might look at  how I translated it,
and
they might say "You are interpreting, because the original said that
ducks
were rowing something like a boat." They wouldn't be right, but to them
it
would look like they were right.  Now, of course I made this up out of
an
English idiom that you do understand.

In Greek there is such an idiom and it's the one about the eye of a
needle.
The eye of a needle is a doorway that still exists at least in Syria,
and it is
still called in that tongue by the words in Syrian of "eye of a needle."
  It
does not matter to some that a picture of such doorway is provided,

There is no picture of a gate that has been called at the time "eye of a
needle".
Gates in Hebrew architecture at or before the time of Christ d not even
look remotely like them. Only the much later Muslim architecture has gates
that smeoen with a lot of fantasy might just think that they look like
needles.

and
that a Syrian guide tells people that the doorway is called an eye of a
needle,

Tourist guides are indeed a pretty bad source for reliable information, as
they tend to find out early on that they get bigger tips when they tell
their charges what they want to hear. In this case, he will have head the
story somewhere and repeated it.

because some refuse to accept that there ever was such a doorway in
Jerusalem.

Yes, because all the evidence says otherwise, from archaeology to
linguistics. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the gates of
Jerusalem were called "eye of the needle", or even remotely in the form of
one  Nor are city gates in Syria called by that term, neither in the past
nor now. There is not a single text from the time of the NT or before, be
it in Hebrew, Syrian or any other language, where the gates of a city are
referred to by this name. There are however plenty of jewish texts where
the idiom is used to describe an impossible task - the closest modern
analogy would be "and pigs can fly", which if course Jews would not use

There are however theological texts from the 15th century that suddenly
propose the city gate  interpretation. They do not provide however any  
sources or evidence, and very clearly intended to make a specific
political or theological point. After the Church had come close to a
schism over the issue whether it was permissible for priests to own
property (the backstory of "The Name of the Rose") and the issue had been
settled in favour of the rich, theologians tried feverishly to explain
away those bible passages that had given the various Spirituals (eg. the
Franciscans) backing, in particular Luke 18:25. 15th century theologians
of course might have seen the Moorish architecture in Spain that has gates
that look just a little bit like needles (if you have fantasy or alcohol)
and got the idea from there, but that architectural style is centuries
younger than the New Testament

So we  know exactly where the idea comes from and  what the motives behind
that interpretation where. We also have a very good idea what the idiom
really means, see below. The whole idea of eye of the needle as city gates
is 15th century bogus, contradicts directly the text at least in Luke
(whose Greek term is very specific, not just "needle") and contradicts
lots of secular Jewish texts from that time and before.

Therefore to some it requires interpration for them to
understand
what the verse says. But to many, it is self explanatory and it is an
acceptable
and easy to understand idiomatic expression by translation alone.

Yes, it means: it is impossible  for a very big animal to go though a very
small thing such as the eye of a surgeons needle (which is the actual word
used in Luke, "belones", a surgeons needle, not "rhapis", sewing needle as
in Mark)

The idiom in well documented in early Jewish literature, where "needle" is
generally used  as a  metaphor for something very small: "A needle's eye
is not too narrow for two friends, but the world is not wide enough  for
two enemies"

The specific expression in Luke  is   based on  a common Jewish proverb
that you also find in the Babylonian Talmud ( eg Baba Mezi'a 38b, or
Berakhot  55a, where it is an elephant, not a camel) and other Jewish
texts.

 It is always used as expression for something that is utterly
impossible or unbeleivable, and has nothing to do with gates of any kind,
shape or form.
We know with other words exactly what the idiom means from other texts
from the same time  - pretty much what it says, that it is impossible to
do because very big things don't go through something as

...

baca lainnya »- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -

- Perlihatkan teks kutipan -


.

Quantcast