A Question for Christians

[Shiranui117]

While I grant that many of the 30,000 sects separated on trivial matters, I think you exaggerate the factor. For most of its long existence, the Roman Catholic Church claimed to be the only path to Heaven, for example.

Yes, they had many political reasons to add to their doctrines such ideas as Papal infallibility and Papal supremacy (which didn't exist for the first roughly 900 years of their shared history with us Orthodox Christians).

In recent years, there has been a better understanding between the churches but it was not always that way. And, if the Bible was interpreted correctly by that elite group of experts you claimed, Christians would not have killed and persecuted other Christians as they once did.

Christian nations belonging to the same exact Church in good standing have gone to war against each other. There are always reasons to persecute and kill other people. That has to do with politics, not faith. No Christian church teaches that it's fine to kill heretics or anybody else. Only in cases where the church and state are inextricably intertwined do we see anything like that, and even then it's the state's fault for its corrupting influence, not the church's.

My question is not about causality or responsibility. It's about whether inspiring the Bible in a human language that would become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted would have been a smart thing to do or a dumb thing to do for an all-knowing god.

Every single human language ever spoken on the face of this planet will either go extinct or evolve beyond intelligibility. English spoken today bears precious little resemblance to English spoken 1000 years ago. And that's not even getting into dialectal variation. Some linguistic theories suggest that 90% of a language's lexicon will change every 1000 years. It doesn't matter what language God chose to gave us the Bible in, that language would have evolved over time and the source texts would have to be translated.

If an all-knowing, all-powerful god intended to give us a moral guide, we would have a simple, cross-cultural guide not dependent on human languages. We may have that in the intuitive feeling that we refer to as "conscience."

If God gave us the Bible in something other than a human language, then we wouldn't understand a word of it in the first place. What language do you propose He should have given us the Bible in? Caterpillar language?

There's no such thing as a cross-cultural form of communication understood by all people. Even signs and symbols have pre-determined cultural associations. Compare the swastika as used in Nazi Germany to the swastika as used by the Navajo people, for example. Some might say music, but even music without vocals can only convey emotions, not ideas.

For example, it is conscience that has told us that the Bible is wrong and Slavery should have been condemned. It is conscience that is telling us that the Bible has been wrong about the way women and homosexuals should be treated.

The Bible says that Christians should bless when cursed, love when hated, and pray for those who persecute us. It also tells us not to judge those outside the Church, because it's God's job, not ours. Wives and husbands should serve each other. I fail to see how that is a wrong way to treat women and homosexuals, or anyone else, really.

 

[Shiranui117]

Why use a human language at all?

Because if you want humans to understand a message, then using a human language is the only means.

 

[joe1776]

No, the problem is that you don't understand the answer, or you don't think there is one, and no answer will ever suit you.

Your opinions about me don't interest me. I'm interested in respectful discussion or debate. Are you not capable of that?

That's how it appears. To the Jewish people (as I am not a Christian, sorry for butting), Hebrew is Lashon HaKodesh, the holy language, and both ancient and modern are used for prayers, recitals, etc., so it's not obsolete in that sense. If you want to say it's obsolete in that it is no longer being written then you are right, but that doesn't make it any less the holy tongue in which prayers, blessings and so on are said.

The texts are studied in this form of Hebrew (and Aramaic), and anyone who converts has to at least have a working knowledge of this Hebrew. So at least from this end, translations shouldn't really be necessary, but due to life simply working the way it does, they were made. Ancient Jewish laypeople needed targumim (explanations), because their vernacular was Aramaic, but these targumim were not considered on a level with the Hebrew, just as the LXX was not considered so.

Word meanings change constantly. I recognize the words as English but I can't understand the language that Shakespeare used.

 

[lukethethird]

What was an all-knowing God's purpose in inspiring men to write the Bible in a language destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted?

It's in keeping with the mystery of it all.

 

[Rival]

Your opinions about me don't interest me. I'm interested in respectful discussion or debate. Are you not capable of that?


Word meanings change constantly. I recognize the words as English but I can't understand the language that Shakespeare used.

I can. You just need to study it, or just grow up with it. Jewish people grow up with this form of Hebrew from their infancy, so they can understand it fine. It's not foreign to them.

 

[joe1776]

Because if you want humans to understand a message, then using a human language is the only means.

That's not true -- especially not for an all-powerful god who could create whatever means necessary.

For example, if a Loving Creator wanted us to know of its existence. It might allow us to feel its loving presence within us at least once in our lives. Some people claim they've felt that.

As for moral guidance, all we would need is to feel the wrongness (as we do with conscience) when we were considering a wrongful act.

 

[Shiranui117]

That's not true -- especially not for an all-powerful god who could create whatever means necessary.

So in other words, you expect God to change the very nature of humanity in the middle of the game to make languages static and unchanging, and suddenly make only one language the language of humanity?

For example, if a Loving Creator wanted us to know of its existence. It might allow us to feel its loving presence within us at least once in our lives. Some people claim they've felt that.

Sure, that feeling happens and people know that there is Something out there. The problem is, nobody would know how to connect and follow God without God Himself showing us how. That's the entire point of Christ becoming incarnate--He became human to show us the way.

As for moral guidance, all we would need is to feel the wrongness (as we do with conscience) when we were considering a wrongful act.

There are plenty of people whose consciences are quelled by life experience, mental illness or cultural standard. Human sacrifice is utterly repulsive to our conscience, but to Germanic and Celtic religions (along with Vedic and Greco-Roman religions until they stopped the practice), it was a noble thing and a necessity to have the gods on your side. Conscience is something that can be shifted and developed in certain directions. Now if you want God to completely shut down all human and cultural factors and make conscience something only He can control, that would technically be an option if God didn't value us having His image within us--that is, the ability to think and make decisions for ourselves.

 

[joe1776]

very single human language ever spoken on the face of this planet will either go extinct or evolve beyond intelligibility. English spoken today bears precious little resemblance to English spoken 1000 years ago. And that's not even getting into dialectal variation. Some linguistic theories suggest that 90% of a language's lexicon will change every 1000 years. It doesn't matter what language God chose to gave us the Bible in, that language would have evolved over time and the source texts would have to be translated.

If God gave us the Bible in something other than a human language, then we wouldn't understand a word of it in the first place. What language do you propose He should have given us the Bible in? Caterpillar language?

Why would an all-knowing Creator need to use human language at all?

You speculated that the Bible was meant as a moral guide. We have a moral guide that is simple and doesn't use language. When we considier doing something wrong, our consciences protests. The act feels wrong. We can ignore it , because we have free will but we don't need the language in the Bible as moral guidance.

 

[Shiranui117]

Why would an all-knowing Creator need to use human language at all?

It's not about what God needs. It's about what we need. We need the Bible to be in human language so we can understand it.

You speculated that the Bible was meant as a moral guide. We have a moral guide that is simple and doesn't use language. When we considier doing something wrong, our consciences protests. The act feels wrong. We can ignore it , because we have free will but we don't need the language in the Bible as moral guidance.

Conscience is malleable and oftentimes determined by culture. Its contents can change, shift and even flip entirely from one person to another. The Bible as a series of written texts is there for all to see; its contents are undisputed. All we have to do is translate it from one language into another.

 

[metis]

What was an all-knowing God's purpose in inspiring men to write the Bible in a language destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted?

Maybe He didn't.

 

[joe1776]

So in other words, you expect God to change the very nature of humanity in the middle of the game to make languages static and unchanging, and suddenly make only one language the language of humanity?

No. I wouldn't expect an all-knowing God to have to change languages because the Christian belief that God gave instructions in human language doesn't make sense to me.

Sure, that feeling happens and people know that there is Something out there. The problem is, nobody would know how to connect and follow God without God Himself showing us how. That's the entire point of Christ becoming incarnate--He became human to show us the way.

I understand your belief but it doesn't answer the question I asked in the OP.

There are plenty of people whose consciences are quelled by life experience, mental illness or cultural standard. Human sacrifice is utterly repulsive to our conscience, but to Germanic and Celtic religions (along with Vedic and Greco-Roman religions until they stopped the practice), it was a noble thing and a necessity to have the gods on your side. Conscience is something that can be shifted and developed in certain directions. Now if you want God to completely shut down all human and cultural factors and make conscience something only He can control, that would technically be an option if God didn't value us having His image within us--that is, the ability to think and make decisions for ourselves.

Conscience is a simple intuitive moral guide only. It doesn't trump free will. Bible scripture at times have misled us morally: slavery, the treatment of women and homosexuals are examples.

 

[joe1776]

It's not about what God needs. It's about what we need. We need the Bible to be in human language so we can understand it.

If God had a purpose in inspiring the Bible to be written, that purpose is what he wanted or needed.

Conscience is malleable and oftentimes determined by culture. Its contents can change, shift and even flip entirely from one person to another. The Bible as a series of written texts is there for all to see; its contents are undisputed. All we have to do is translate it from one language into another.

You are confused by cultural biases. For example, at one time, legal slavery was condoned in the USA -- that was a cultural bias which sent morality off course. It was conscience, being examined one mind at a time, spreading like a virus, that changed the cultural bias.

So, the conscience of Americans didn't change on slavery. It was conscience that was the mechanism for change for Americans on the slavery issue.

 

[joe1776]

Maybe He didn't.

I think it unlikely. What do you think?

 

[Axe Elf]

My question is for Christians because it's their belief that I'm trying to make sense of.

Ah, then you mis-stated the question. Instead of asking "What was an all-knowing God's purpose..." your question is really "What do Christians believe was an all-knowing God's purpose..."

Making sense of Christian beliefs is probably a much more attainable goal than making sense of an all-knowing God's purpose, anyway, especially given our own severely limited (un-omniscient) perspective.

You turned this into a false dichotomy: As though the choice was between an existing language or one not yet existing.

Let me ask you, then; what is the actual dichotomy? Your question implies that God had an alternative--what was the alternative (as you understand it, anyway, given your own severely limited perspective)?

As a pre-emptive guess, I'm going to venture that my original answer would still apply--that the alternative God chose was the one which gave His inspired Biblical texts the greatest chance of topping the all-time best-seller list, as opposed to being brushed aside in the ever-changing tides of the centuries.

Why use a human language at all? What was God trying to do that couldn't have been done in a way that made more sense?

Again, falling short of omniscience, I'm going to venture that a human language was used because the message was intended for humans. Had God's message been intended for dogs, for instance, it probably would have consisted of a series of woofs, ruffs, and growls (albeit in an equally ancient dialect). And while you're asking for human beliefs about God's purposes again, rather than God's purposes themselves (or else you would be asking God directly), I'm at a loss to think of a way that God could communicate with humans that makes more sense than using a human language.

Perhaps again you could supply some alternatives that make more sense to you?

 

[Desert Snake]

What was an all-knowing God's purpose in inspiring men to write the Bible in a language destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted?

The answers are in the Bible, itself.

Of course churches misinterpret their texts, many don't even have a three days Resurrection, even though it's pivotal, to their "faith", yeah right, presumably.

I think you're better off just asking specific questions, though. The 'bible' is a standard canon, not what all Christianity agreed upon.

 

[sealchan]

What was an all-knowing God's purpose in inspiring men to write the Bible in a language destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted?

It might have been maintained and updated but I guess that the inspiration in the Bible went, instead, in the Christian context, to support a political power structure on Earth even against the example of Jesus. The text was canonized and frozen and further inspiration from God considered heretic.

 

[joe1776]

It's in keeping with the mystery of it all.

God works in mysterious ways? So, does the mind of man.

Ah, then you mis-stated the question. Instead of asking "What was an all-knowing God's purpose..." your question is really "What do Christians believe was an all-knowing God's purpose..."

Hair splitting.

Let me ask you, then; what is the actual dichotomy? Your question implies that God had an alternative--what was the alternative (as you understand it, anyway, given your own severely limited perspective)?

That would depend on what the Christian believes was the purpose of the Bible. for example, one such purpose offered was moral guidance. I pointed out that conscience offers moral guidance and doesn't use language to do it.

Again, falling short of omniscience, I'm going to venture that a human language was used because the message was intended for humans.

That assumes that an all-powerful god is limited in its ways to communicate with us which doesn't seem likely.

Let's say that an all-knowing god wants us to know of it existence. It could find any number of ways to do that don't involve writing to us in ancient Hebrew.

 

[joe1776]

The answers are in the Bible, itself.

Do you know what those answers are to the question in the OP. If you do, would enlighten me, please.

 

[joe1776]

It might have been maintained and updated but I guess that the inspiration in the Bible went, instead, in the Christian context, to support a political power structure on Earth even against the example of Jesus. The text was canonized and frozen and further inspiration from God considered heretic.

You mean an all-knowing god didn't know that would happen?

 

[Shiranui117]

You are confused by cultural biases. For example, at one time, legal slavery was condoned in the USA -- that was a cultural bias which sent morality off course. It was conscience, being examined one mind at a time, spreading like a virus, that changed the cultural bias.

A conscience informed by Biblical Christian morals. American slavery was far more brutal and dehumanizing than prior forms of slavery, where slaves in noble houses often had it much better than serfs or people theoretically higher on the social hierarchy. Biblical laws on slavery made it illegal, for example, to beat or kill your slaves. Slaves according to Biblical law were only slaves for a maximum of seven years unless they themselves chose otherwise, and those who owned slaves had many laws and prohibitions concerning how to treat their slaves. The New Testament condemns even raising one's hand to a slave; they are to be treated with Christian dignity, with kindness and gentleness. In the Bible, slavery was merely temporary indentured servitude.

So, the conscience of Americans didn't change on slavery. It was conscience that was the mechanism for change for Americans on the slavery issue.

Many Americans bought into eugenics, which taught that blacks and non-whites were at best subhuman, and at worst little more than ruthless animals looking for an opportunity to kill and run amok. Some still do hold these views.

Conscience is based on one's internal moral system, and we are not born with a well-established moral system. Those systems are built and shaped as we grow, as a result of a variety of social, philosophical, religious and educational influences. A Norse pagan, for example, would think it meet and right to offer himself as a human sacrifice to be ritually killed in a bog on behalf of his tribe to curry the favor of the gods. That's not cultural bias, that's conscience formed in a different way by a different culture.

You suggest that God could simply utilize our conscience, and this certainly does happen. However, God is not the only factor influencing our conscience. We have to choose God's influence on our conscience over and above societal, familial and cultural influences. If you think that all people have the same exact conscience regardless of culture and era, I would invite you to prove it. It is against the conscience of a Muslim to drink; they have a bad conscience if they sit around and have a beer or two with friends. I have experienced this personally when a Muslim friend from Egypt talked about how he knew it was bad to drink. I, however, have no problem enjoying a beer or two in a night; it doesn't trouble my conscience at all.