AdamRaja
Islamic Philosopher
Because it isAnd you know this to be a fact because: _____________________________________________________________ .
.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Because it isAnd you know this to be a fact because: _____________________________________________________________ .
.
Because it is
LolBecause confirmation bias
I just mean that they are capable of reading and interpreting their books in their original languages because [most] Jews are raised with it, regardless what they believe.One original collection of myths is necessarily better than a smorgasbord of an assemblage of collections of ancient myths?
Nah.
I don’t see Judaism or Islam as better than Christianity.
The method of copying was not in question. That they were copied by hand was.
Considering there are no original nt bo
books and you know it you have obfuscated.
That, Christine, is a decision that you have made. But it isn't based on logic. The method IS important.
Actually it is a decision based on logic, knowledge of the human condition, history, the fact that no 2 versions of the bible are the same, the fact that no original version of the NT exists (and still no answer to the original bibles claim) and the OT can only be compared to Hebrew scripture because no original OT texts exist.
How did you make your decision?
I have laid logical understanding, quoted 20+ scriptures from different Bibles that say the same thing that proves your point absurd.
Other than your personal opinions, you have proved nothing.
No they can't. They'd have to live back when it was written in order to understand the context directly. Without the original context, it's all still a translation of the meaning from the original language to the modern usage of the same words and images, supposing modern thought reflects the original culture's understanding. Just reading the words, does not mean you get the meaning, especially when you are removed from the original culture by 2000 plus years.Good thing the Jews can read the original. Anyone an learn.
Then no-one would be able to understand anything ever that was written even just a few years ago. That's not a very good argument.No they can't. They'd have to live back when it was written in order to understand the context directly. Without the original context, it's all still a translation of the meaning from the original to the modern, supposing modern thought reflects the original culture's understanding. Just reading the words, does not mean you get the meaning.
It is an excellent argument that cannot be disputed. To answer your objection, the answer is YES, everything we read, even from today, is subject to our own frames of reference, even if the words are spoken directly to you. Add 2000 plus years of removal from the original culture, and what you have at best is whiffs of something cooking from another village 20 miles away, not the actual meal they are serving.Then no-one would be able to understand anything ever that was written even just a few years ago. That's not a very good argument.
Of course everything is subject to our own frames of reference, but to suggest that we cannot accurately interpret something in light of a known context is absurd. If we know there was a war going on and David had just escaped being killed, we can deduce the meaning of this or that psalm relatively simply. If we know the cultural context of a given prophecy we can put it into this situation and go from there. The Jewish people are more than reasonably knowledgable about their history, culture, religion et al. and are well prepared to interpret their scriptures; they have been doing it since they've had scriptures. They have commentary on commentary.It is an excellent argument that cannot be disputed. To answer your objection, the answer is YES, everything we read, even from today, is subject to our own frames of reference, even if the words are spoken directly to you. Add 2000 plus years of removal from the original culture, and what you have at best is whiffs of something cooking from another village 20 miles away, not the actual meal they are serving.
First of all, it's not a known context. You would have to be part of the original culture, immersed within it as the very set of eyes you look at reality through, understanding all the nuances and subtleties of what is was to be a Jewish person living over 2000 years in the past in a culture that no longer exists today in as then. The best you can hope for is little bits of information here and there. That does not make you part of the culture, and as such, it's like trying to talk about what it is to be a French person, because you read about the culture in a few books. That is what is an absurd assumption.Of course everything is subject to our own frames of reference, but to suggest that we cannot accurately interpret something in light of a known context is absurd.
You think you can reduce understanding down to a few bits of historical data left in the sparse writings of a few individuals in ancient history? The variable you just site can have a million different understandings of what that may have meant to him, what was in his mind translating his reality through the reality of the world as it was to him then, of which we at best have only glimpses of, and those glimpses are filtered through our modern context, outside the original context. We read into ancient texts, modern understandings all the time. That is just how this works. It's what we all do, even if that person is talking to you directly face to face.If we know there was a war going on and David had just escaped being killed, we can deduce the meaning of this or that psalm relatively simply.
But we don't know it. That's like saying the fossil of an fish found in the rock of an ancient sea bed can tell you everything you need to know about the ocean it swam in. The "and go from there," really should be said, "and make up and inject our own ideas into it and call that truth".If we know the cultural context of a given prophecy we can put it into this situation and go from there.
Sure, nonetheless, they are not ancient Jews. And if you were able to transport one of them in a time machine, dropping them into the world of 2500 BCE, do you think that anyone there were think this visitor from the future was one of them? Hell no. What if you transported an ancient Jew into a modern Jewish community? Do you think the modern Jews would understand this ancient man? Highly doubtful, in fact, I'd say a guaranteed no.The Jewish people are more than reasonably knowledgable about their history, culture, religion et al. and are well prepared to interpret their scriptures; they have been doing it since they've had scriptures. They have commentary on commentary.
Ever heard of the word "sinecure?"What would clergy get out of lying to people? How would it benefit them? These are people who presumably believe in their professed religion and that their immortal soul depends upon it.
It is a known context. What makes you think it isn't? I don't need to travel to Tudor England to understand poetry written about jousting. You are overcomplicating this.First of all, it's not a known context. You would have to be part of the original culture, immersed within it as the very set of eyes you look at reality through, understanding all the nuances and subtleties of what is was to be a Jewish person living over 2000 years in the past in a culture that no longer exists today in as then. The best you can hope for is little bits of information here and there. That does not make you part of the culture, and as such, it's like trying to talk about what it is to be a French person, because you read about the culture in a few books. That is what is an absurd assumption.
We know what he felt and experienced because he wrote it. If David writes 'My enemies encompass me' and he's praying to G-d for deliverance, this is not difficult to interpret. We know who he was fighting because the other scriptures inform us. It's not as though there is a dark veil over our understanding. If people couldn't understand their own religious writings, there would be no religions.You think you can reduce understanding down to a few bits of historical data left in the sparse writings of a few individuals in ancient history? The variable you just site can have a million different understandings of what that may have meant to him, what was in his mind translating his reality through the reality of the world as it was to him then, of which we at best have only glimpses of, and those glimpses are filtered through our modern context, outside the original context. We read into ancient texts, modern understandings all the time. That is just how this works. It's what we all do, even if that person is talking to you directly face to face.
We do know it. A prophecy written about Israel returning from exile in Babylon is simple. We know about the wars and exiles that took place. We know which tribes were taken. We know who the leaders were. We know how it all panned out.But we don't know it. That's like saying the fossil of an fish found in the rock of an ancient sea bed can tell you everything you need to know about the ocean it swam in. The "and go from there," really should be said, "and make up and inject our own ideas into it and call that truth".
Sure he may have problems adjusting to the different timezone and lack of technology, but certainly he'd be a Jew.Sure, nonetheless, they are not ancient Jews. And if you were able to transport one of them in a time machine, dropping them into the world of 2500 BCE, do you think that anyone there were think this visitor from the future was one of them? Hell no.
It doesn't really apply here.Ever heard of the word "sinecure?"
I most certainly am not saying they cannot interpret their own scriptures in light of, or rather as an extension of their own culture. This is how religious thought develops, and grows and changes over the ages. What I am actually saying, is that an interpretation is just that. It is expounding on a tradition, not trying to tell you what was in the actual minds of the actual authors of the time, and how they meant, intended, or were thinking at the time. It likely would not resemble how the interpreter of today would understand it. That is what I mean.A Frank has every right to interpret his own culture, past and present, because it's his culture. I am arguing for Jewish people being able to interpret Jewish scriptures in light of Jewish culture, history and so on. Saying they can't do that because they weren't there is effectively saying that they don't understand their own religion, and if we must continue using this word, that is undoubtedly absurd.
Do you really? There is no way I can write about my own experiences, and expect you reading them to be able to claim you know how I really felt through them. They are just words on a page. They contain no non-verbal communications, no body language, no facial expression, no verbal inflections, no other other cues whatsoever, etc.We know what he felt and experienced because he wrote it.
Is this maybe a metaphor for inner struggles from his own inner demons, using these earthly battles to symbolize that, like you find in the Bhagavad Gita? How do you interpret it? That's how I interpret it. Are you right and I'm wrong? Or do neither of us really know what he meant and interpreting it in ways that are meaningful to us?If David writes 'My enemies encompass me' and he's praying to G-d for deliverance, this is not difficult to interpret. We know who he was fighting because the other scriptures inform us.
If you take the word of another Jewish teacher, by the name of the Apostle Paul there is, "For now we see through a glass dimly, but then shall we see face to face".It's not as though there is a dark veil over our understanding.
Well, that is not true at all! My lord, just take a poll of members of them what they really know about their religion, and most do not know much at all.If people couldn't understand their own religious writings, there would be no religions.
No you don't. That's just a super high-level sketch that you summarized the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives over the course of many years into a single paragraph. Good job in compressing the hell out of reality.We do know it. A prophecy written about Israel returning from exile in Babylon is simple. We know about the wars and exiles that took place. We know which tribes were taken. We know who the leaders were. We know how it all panned out.
Sure, but a very strange and foreign one where they would all wonder why he thinks so strangely about the things they believe in.Sure he may have problems adjusting to the different timezone and lack of technology, but certainly he'd be a Jew.
Why is the number of translations in existence a problem exactly?
The Christian claim has never asserted the existence a single, flawless manuscript tradition. Yet alone the possibility of a flawless never to be superseded English translation.