Why I'm Not a Biblical Literalist

[_Runtu]

I haven't. I've heard that some translations that attempt to make God more gender neutral are crticized. Translations that I don't have a problem with, for what it's worth. But those don't address the essential core of Christianity. The doctrines that make LDSism and JWism nonchristian.

I was thinking specifically of this quote from Bishop New Testament Wright:

'When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there, and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses…. Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul's letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. …[I]f a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about."

I don't know. Did I write that?

You used the word "accurate," as I recall.

I thought the translations were generated from the earliest documents we have? Certainly some contextual decisions were made but its my understanding that those that would effect doctrine are few.

All texts are created in the act of reading. I'm probably using a broader definition of "text" than you are.

I disagree. The writer of any text has a meaning he/she wants to impart. Why is the Bible any different?

Of course the writer wants to impart meaning, but we err if we think reading something gives us access to the writer's intended meaning.

I didn't write that and don't know anyone who believes this.

You certainly approach it more literally than I do, and you seem to believe that a literal approach to, say, the creation accounts, is important. I'm still not sure why.

[_Hoops]

I'm unfamiliar with the New Testament Wright controversy. However, in the quote you provided, he mentions, specifically, the NIV supporting a protestant view. I don't know what that mean. But it doesn't seem to mean that the NIV supports a non-trinitaria view, non Jesus' death and bodily resurrection, the supremacy of scripture,... things like that.

You used the word "accurate," as I recall.

Then I probably meant that the modern English translations we have correspond to the ms we do have.

All texts are created in the act of reading. I'm probably using a broader definition of "text" than you are.

Maybe so.

Of course the writer wants to impart meaning, but we err if we think reading something gives us access to the writer's intended meaning.

I recall you were an English major so I THINK I know what you mean. I approach this from a more conservative direction. This may be where our education is getting in the way of our understanding. :). At the risk causing anyone following this to descend into a glassy-eyes mass of boredom, I would disagree completely. One does the author justice by believing that he/she used the exact word at the exact time to impart the meaning he/she intends. Or, put another way, if the author did not mean what that word imparts, then why did he/she use that word?

You certainly approach it more literally than I do, and you seem to believe that a literal approach to, say, the creation accounts, is important. I'm still not sure why.

It seems I do. I think it's safe and reasonable to assume that the author means what he/she writes.

[_Runtu]

I think it's safe and reasonable to assume that the author means what he/she writes.

I think that's the crux of the matter. I'm not sure we mean what we write. Often, I find myself thinking, "Oh, I didn't mean that," or "I wish I'd said things more clearly." But even if we grant that we mean what we write, I think it's very difficult to read a text and approach understanding what the author meant.

But ultimately, it doesn't matter what the author means. Once we read a text, it's ours, created from the interchange between reader and text. And the marvelous thing about reading is that we can read the same thing multiple times and get different meanings and insights each time. It's hard for me to believe that an author intended for us to read it differently each time, but that's usually how it works.

[_Jason Bourne]

From corruption

You have no evidence of this as this is a qualitative judgement.

There certainly is plenty of evidence of text tampering. The Johanine comma and some of the last chapter of Mark are two that come to mind. Also the story of the woman caught in adultery. In addition Ehrman's book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture outlines many scribal changes some of which were more than mere error. Some were specific changes by the winners to change passages that could be used by what was eventually classified and heritical. Adoptionist and Doecist supporting passages were altered to be more "orthodox."

from changed text,

No one questions this. But what has been the result?

The result is text that one can trust less and less. If the Bible was so important to God why did he allow such tampering. Also, I know the argument that what was changed had no impact on the gospel message and core doctrine. That may or may not be the case at least for the changes we know about. But who knows what else there is? So the changes cause the integrity of the text to come into question.

from lost text,

This is bound up in your next point. so let's just go there

from directing with some authority what should be included in the final book-it is clear that some texts were considered authorative and eventually not included in the Bible and some that were included were considered suspect by many at various times.

You know, an interesting point, imho, here is the point many of "you" make about the compilation of the Bible. I think a good reason why the books were not assembled until later was to allow for time for the apostles/writers to write and comment on them. And those who were instructed by the apostles/writers to make comment. I think the core doctrine we have today align quite well with the comments of the ECFs.

Most the ECFs we look to now were among the winners in the early Christian controversies. So of course they picked texts that backed the winning position.

But still I see this a problematic. I think the fact that there were so many forgeries, some of which made it into the Bible, that fact that we do not know who really wrote the gospels and how clear it is that based on the date they were written shows later theological ideas that may not have been taught originally (I am thinking John here) all this is a problem in trusting the text.

Where are the originals?

Yes, it would be nice to have them. We don't.

Yes I noted that.

Does our default position have to be that what we do have is suspect to the degree you want?

It does not have to be any position. But it makes things problematic. My point is if this book was all important to God why didn't he do a better job preserving it. Answer is it may not have really been that important to God. Maybe he was not involved in it.

Read any book by Erhman. You mention him above. I think he shows many problems. Mostly what really was authoritative and what was not. Why were some texts that seemed authoritative dismissed by the eventual winners as heretical? If the alleged heretics had won the debates what would the Bible look like today.

I've read Ehrman (not what was mentioned below though) but I'm asking you.

See above.

[_Hoops]

I'm not sure we mean what we write.

Then how can we rely on any text of any kind for anything?

find myself thinking, "Oh, I didn't mean that," or "I wish I'd said things more clearly." But even if we grant that we mean what we write, I think it's very difficult to read a text and approach understanding what the author meant.

Yet you and i, after a misstep or two, have managed to make ourselves clear.

But ultimately, it doesn't matter what the author means

Utlimately, it matters a great deal. It the "all there is."

Once we read a text, it's ours, created from the interchange between reader and text. And the marvelous thing about reading is that we can read the same thing multiple times and get different meanings and insights each time.

That's true. But that doesn't mean that there is not a specific, concrete meaning intended by the writer. It may mean that I just read poorly.

It's hard for me to believe that an author intended for us to read it differently each time, but that's usually how it works.

Which is why we've created ways to decipher or determine the meaning. We have classes on how to do this. We talk to each other. We read it again with a different mindset. We pursue the author's meaning. That's what we do as educated beings. Or, perhaps, that is what makes us educated.

[_Runtu]

Then how can we rely on any text of any kind for anything?

That was my point: relying on a text is problematic and messy because all texts are problematic and messy.

Yet you and i, after a misstep or two, have managed to make ourselves clear.

More or less, yes, but that's quite a different thing from saying that, by reading the Bible, we know what God meant to say.

Utlimately, it matters a great deal. It the "all there is."

"All there is" is the text.

That's true. But that doesn't mean that there is not a specific, concrete meaning intended by the writer. It may mean that I just read poorly.

But there's the problem: how do you determine the specific, concrete meaning intended by the writer? It's impossible. I think it was F. Scott Fitzgerald who liked to give deliberately made-up responses when people asked what he meant when he wrote something, but he acknowledged that often he didn't remember or didn't know what he was thinking when he wrote something. Heck, as a writer, I sometimes reread things I've written and can't figure out what I meant.

Which is why we've created ways to decipher or determine the meaning. We have classes on how to do this. We talk to each other. We read it again with a different mindset. We pursue the author's meaning. That's what we do as educated beings. Or, perhaps, that is what makes us educated.

But all you're talking about is consensus. In other words, a group of readers has decided that a text means something. That has nothing to do with what the author intended or whether the consensus is correct. We can make educated guesses with all the tools at our disposal, but we cannot possibly know what was in the mind of the writer when he or she wrote the words.

[_JohnOneOne]

Just where are these Bibles where these huge chasms of doctrinal divide are?

I remember on my mission coming across a "New World Translation" of the Bible from the Jehovah's Witnesses, which we nicknamed "The Green Dragon" because it had a green cover and a picture of a dragon on the maps of the Middle East inside the cover. Although some scholars have praised its translators' "scholarly ability and acumen" and said the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate," most mainstream Christians, I would imagine, would not accept the NWT as doctrinally consistent with other Bibles.

Some examples where you'd probably be unhappy with the JWs:

John 1:1 : In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Are you OK with that?

Luke 23:33: "And when they got to the place called Skull, there they impaled him and the evildoers, one on his right and one on his left." And it's a "torture stake," not a cross.

Colossians 1:15-18: "15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things."

These verses have Jesus as a created being. How does that sound to you?

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 19+ year study (as of 7/2011), a thoroughly researched reference work - a historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

[_Runtu]

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 19+ year study (as of 7/2011), a thoroughly researched reference work - a historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

Thank you for making my point that there are big doctrinal and textual differences between translations and translators. I don't have a dog in this fight, but suffice it to say you don't agree with the mainstream Christian folks, as I would have expected.

[_Hoops]

Thank you for making my point that there are big doctrinal and textual differences between translations and translators. I don't have a dog in this fight, but suffice it to say you don't agree with the mainstream Christian folks, as I would have expected.

I don't think this is making your point at all. Because JW's (and LDS, for that matter) have added to scripture and made that a jumping off point to some Gnostic knowledge doesn't mean that orthodox Christianity has all of these variations that you claim. The greatest divide might be between RCC and Protestants, or Charismatics and the rest, and that divide is non existent in core beliefs.

And, just because someone comes here and touts some earth shattering new research - that has not even been published, reviewed, and we don't even know who is making the claim - doesn't support your case. You didn't Will Schryver get away with this. Why does this person?

[_Hoops]

That was my point: relying on a text is problematic and messy because all texts are problematic and messy.

There are parts of the Bible that certainly are difficult. No one disputes that. But much of it (most of it?) are quite clear. Of course, you may go to The Trinity, and I'll grant you that it took time for that essential doctrine to develop. But you would agree that it developed by appealing to the Bible as a whole, would you not? That's not all of it of course, the dreaded continuing revelation rears its head again. But with a non-lds twist.

More or less, yes, but that's quite a different thing from saying that, by reading the Bible, we know what God meant to say.

Why? We can go a long way from what is clear, using that, and applying it to what is less clear.

"All there is" is the text.

Yes.

But there's the problem: how do you determine the specific, concrete meaning intended by the writer? It's impossible. I think it was F. Scott Fitzgerald who liked to give deliberately made-up responses when people asked what he meant when he wrote something, but he acknowledged that often he didn't remember or didn't know what he was thinking when he wrote something. Heck, as a writer, I sometimes reread things I've written and can't figure out what I meant.

I suppose we will agree to disagree. I see this as the solution. The words chosen by the author are the solution, not the other way around. I recall a similar story (not very well, though) of an author who was asked what he meant by "The green tree" (or something similarly mundane). He said it meant, "The tree was green."