Can a person truly understand a text if.........

[columbus]

Again it depends on the nature of the text. Most texts aren't deeply tied to a culture and most often a cursory knowledge of the culture in question is more than enough to understand a text. Some philosophical and historial texts might require a more deep knowledge of the culture producing them and for those are important detail for any serious critique of a specific work.

This is a crucial point. Understanding relatively mundane text is not so difficult.

An account of a battle, or a sea voyage, or somebody's life history is far easier than Scripture. Because most of the concepts are objective and so the meaning of the words used to describe them is clear.

Then there are far more subjective concepts like God and morality and prophecy and such. There are no objective standards for truth in the religious world.

Nevertheless, people commonly mistake their own opinions for objective truth. So people often believe that their personal opinion about the meaning of some Scriptural text is The Word of God, and those non-believers who don't find their opinions authoritative are evil and rebelling against God. Oftentimes, they'll flat out deny objective evidence to protect their opinions. Like Creationists and homophobes and people like that.
Not all religious people are like that. But lots of them are. And so religion tends to drag primitive and immoral beliefs into the modern world.

Because humans have a tendency towards arrogance and religion encourages that tendency.
Tom

 

[Onoma]

After having looked at a number of debates and discussions on this forum. I have noticed a interesting thing in a few of them that makes me ask the following questions.

The following will involve questions about someone I will call "person X".

1. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when they are a reading a translation of it?
2. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text if they do not accurately know, first hand, the culture/idioms of the authors/receipants/transmitters of the most ancient and authorative versions of the text?
3. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the language of the text is several thousand years old and person X is not even slightly fluent in the language the text was written in?
4. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the above questions are answered "no" about person X and when people who do know the language fluently and grew up in the culture that produced the text disagree with person X's ideas about the text?

I am interested in reading people's thoughts.

There are ancient traditions that pertain to exegesis of literature that passed through the hands of priests, priest-kings and pharaohs

They weren't meant to be able to be read or understood by anyone who picked them up

Many times, proper interpretation was only done under the guidance of tutelary deities, and literature that belonged to priests contained a colophon warning to people who shouldn't be attempting to read or interpret the texts, in essence stating ( I'm paraphrasing ):

" Do not attempt to interpret this text if you are not the priest under______ ( Insert god of your choice ), or you will curse yourself by your words "

A good place to start is the paper : Secrets in the Library: Protected Knowledge and Professional Identity in Late Babylonian Uruk ( Kathryn Stevens )

Secrets in the Library: Protected Knowledge and Professional Identity in Late Babylonian Uruk1 | IRAQ | Cambridge Core

 

[robocop (actually)]

After having looked at a number of debates and discussions on this forum. I have noticed a interesting thing in a few of them that makes me ask the following questions.

The following will involve questions about someone I will call "person X".

1. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when they are a reading a translation of it?
2. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text if they do not accurately know, first hand, the culture/idioms of the authors/receipants/transmitters of the most ancient and authorative versions of the text?
3. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the language of the text is several thousand years old and person X is not even slightly fluent in the language the text was written in?
4. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the above questions are answered "no" about person X and when people who do know the language fluently and grew up in the culture that produced the text disagree with person X's ideas about the text?

I am interested in reading people's thoughts.

Those things help and there are many layers to the Torah. The Book offers in knowledge what the book offers in knowledge.

Oh yeah, and the Book of Mormon has lots of historical context that can be found at www.bookofmormoncentral.org (see the know whys for instance).

 

[syo]

Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when they are a reading a translation of it?

It depends... Who wrote the translation?

 

[Kenny]

Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when they are a reading a translation of it?

To some degree... an overall truth. With today's "helps" - books etc. greater understanding is garnered. However, even when you have the original (assuming we are talking about texts that we believe are from God, can we really completely understand what He knows?

Can person X really claim to know/understand a text if they do not accurately know, first hand, the culture/idioms of the authors/receipants/transmitters of the most ancient and authorative versions of the text?

Customs and idioms are important. You will miss something and get something if you don't know the customs and idioms.

• Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the language of the text is several thousand years old and person X is not even slightly fluent in the language the text was written in?

With today's helps, I thinks so to some degree. But, the more you know the language, the better.

Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the above questions are answered "no" about person X and when people who do know the language fluently and grew up in the culture that produced the text disagree with person X's ideas about the text?

In Jesus time, the religious leaders knew the language and customs and yet, according to Jesus, they didn't understand at all.

So I think that one who knows the language and grew up in the culture doesn't necessarily understand texts better. Not to say they couldn't know more just that in some cases (as with Jesus) it isn't a guaranteed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

After having looked at a number of debates and discussions on this forum. I have noticed a interesting thing in a few of them that makes me ask the following questions.

The following will involve questions about someone I will call "person X".

1. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when they are a reading a translation of it?
2. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text if they do not accurately know, first hand, the culture/idioms of the authors/receipants/transmitters of the most ancient and authorative versions of the text?
3. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the language of the text is several thousand years old and person X is not even slightly fluent in the language the text was written in?
4. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the above questions are answered "no" about person X and when people who do know the language fluently and grew up in the culture that produced the text disagree with person X's ideas about the text?

I am interested in reading people's thoughts.

There are certainly elements of truth to this. However, I don't think it's binary.
Taking the religious aspect out of it for a moment, I'd consider myself to a have a decent understanding of the Magna Carte both in terms of content and impact, but most of what you say here applies to me.
Can I 'really claim' to know it? Probably not, although that's a subjective measurement.

 

[Muffled]

After having looked at a number of debates and discussions on this forum. I have noticed a interesting thing in a few of them that makes me ask the following questions.

The following will involve questions about someone I will call "person X".

1. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when they are a reading a translation of it?
2. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text if they do not accurately know, first hand, the culture/idioms of the authors/receipants/transmitters of the most ancient and authorative versions of the text?
3. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the language of the text is several thousand years old and person X is not even slightly fluent in the language the text was written in?
4. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the above questions are answered "no" about person X and when people who do know the language fluently and grew up in the culture that produced the text disagree with person X's ideas about the text?

I am interested in reading people's thoughts.

I believe the Holy Spirit who knows all things guides in the understanding of a text. So 1-4 won't matter.

 

[Muffled]

Every person will have their personal understanding of the scripture, up to the level of wisdom they have attained. So it is wise to say " in my understanding" instead of saying "this is the full truth."

If we knew the language that the teaching was written originally, yes it would give us an even deeper understanding of the truth within the teaching. But it is better to have a translation of the text, so you can at least know 80-90% of the text. Then if one want, one could study the language that was originally of the scripture.

There will be different understanding each person cultivate on the way to enlightenment. But as long they do as the scriptures teaches they will gain inner wisdom.

This is my understanding of your questions

I believe I generally find it helpful to look at the original language when someone has a different interpretation

 

[Muffled]

It obviously depends on the text. With regard to the Tanakh, much is accessible while some is uncertain and some simply opaque. Scholarship helps. Presuppositions generally get in the way (such as your reference to "most ancient and authorative versions of the text").

I believe I once ran into a passage in Job that made no sense so I asked a scholar about his translation. He said it was untranslatable. So basically the translators into English fudged it and mucked it up in the process.

 

[1213]

...Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when they are a reading a translation of it?....

If not, it is not truly a translation.

 

[Dogknox20]

After having looked at a number of debates and discussions on this forum. I have noticed a interesting thing in a few of them that makes me ask the following questions.

The following will involve questions about someone I will call "person X".

1. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when they are a reading a translation of it?
2. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text if they do not accurately know, first hand, the culture/idioms of the authors/recipients/transmitters of the most ancient and authoritive versions of the text?
3. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the language of the text is several thousand years old and person X is not even slightly fluent in the language the text was written in?
4. Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the above questions are answered "no" about person X and when people who do know the language fluently and grew up in the culture that produced the text disagree with person X's ideas about the text?

I am interested in reading people's thoughts.

Ehav4Ever The whole problem is the man made tradition of "Scriptures ALONE" until the sixteen hundreds this tradition was unheard of, Martin Luther it the author of it! Fact is; The teaching of "All man needs is the scriptures to arrive at truth" has caused the damnation of many souls! Truly Satan personally had his hand in the forming of the chaos cause by it!
Ehav4Ever your question points out the errors "Scriptures ALONE" creates. The answer to all four of your questions can only be "No one person" can be qualified to understand the scriptures to be qualified, they need to be expert in ancient customs, traditions and languages! They need to have a good grasp of history and grammar! The person trusting in the tradition of "All man needs is the scriptures to arrive at truth" cannot ask for help or the scriptures are NOT ALONE they become Scriptures PLUS the person you go to for help in the interpretation of said scripture! Scriptures PLUS your pastor or scriptures plus the Church!
It is the tradition of "All man needs is the scriptures to arrive at truth" that is the root cause of the thousands and thousands of man made churches all claiming to have the ONLY Truth but not even two of these many thousands believe the same things!

 

[Dogknox20]

I'll answer No to all of the above. No one, not even the most skilled and informed scholar can claim with absolute certainty what the original author meant. How much less so then the novice who picks up, say the bible, and proclaims his views about the text as, "These are not my words, but God's words!".

Phooey. Hogwash. Everything that anyone reads or even hears directly, gets filtered through their own lenses of reality which are created by their own culture and language, as well as life experiences and general knowledge. The best the novice can say, is "this is how I take what it says, based upon the limitations of my understanding". That is the truth about it. It's their interpretation.

I reply: It is the tradition of "All man needs is the scriptures to arrive at truth" (scripture Alone) that is the root cause of the thousands and thousands of man made churches all claiming to have the ONLY Truth but not even two of these many thousands believe the same things!

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

If a text is of universal value, it transcends language, culture and time.

Dear Secret Chief,

If you think about this, a text cannot per se be of universal value. The concept that it’s attempting to describe, can be, but not the text itself.

Also, may I ask for your distinction between text and language? Because I would have said that whiles concepts always transcend language (the purpose of language being to try to capture and express concepts), texts as such, can never do so.

The concepts behind our words can be eternal but language is alive and thus - often through text, in fact - ever-changing over space and time.

This matters, because the words/language I choose to try to express the concept of X to you today, may come to depict a whole different concept to those who read it tomorrow.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[Secret Chief]

If you think about this, a text cannot per se be of universal value. The concept that it’s attempting to describe, can be, but not the text itself.

I believe you are correct and that I was wrong. I should indeed have said concepts, not texts.

Also, may I ask for your distinction between text and language? Because I would have said that whiles concepts always transcend language (the purpose of language being to try to capture and express concepts), texts as such, can never do so.

The text is "the published work" as it were. The language of course being systems of symbols utilised for communication, such as in a particular text.

The concepts behind our words can be eternal but language is alive and thus - often through text, in fact - ever-changing over space and time. This matters, because the words/language I choose to try to express the concept of X to you today, may come to depict a whole different concept to those who read it tomorrow.

I agree, which is why it is important to try to ensure the most accurate means of communication is utilised. There presumably is a difficult balance to aim for between preserving the original "faithfully" and attempting to remain relevant "tomorrow." (A challenge that I clearly would not be up to!)

[PS I tried to look at your blog but it wouldn't load; something about an invalid certificate. Twitter was fine.]

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I believe you are correct and that I was wrong. I should indeed have said concepts, not texts.



The text is "the published work" as it were. The language of course being systems of symbols utilised for communication, such as in a particular text.



I agree, which is why it is important to try to ensure the most accurate means of communication is utilised. There presumably is a difficult balance to aim for between preserving the original "faithfully" and attempting to remain relevant "tomorrow." (A challenge that I clearly would not be up to!)

[PS I tried to look at your blog but it wouldn't load; something about an invalid certificate. Twitter was fine.]

Thank you, Secret Chief.

No one knows how our words are/will be interpreted - especially not in the future .

Even our own interpretations of what we are told, change over time.

A priest once told me that one’s relationship to God was personal. I’m not sure what I thought he meant then, but years later, I took it to mean just this: that one cannot express such things in words and therefore cannot pass it on to another. Faith - with any luck - is personal.

Humbly
Hermit

Ps. Thank you for info about blog. I’ve not written there in many years.

 

[Secret Chief]

Thank you, Secret Chief.

No one knows how our words are/will be interpreted - especially not in the future .

Even our own interpretations of what we are told, change over time.

A priest once told me that one’s relationship to God was personal. I’m not sure what I thought he meant then, but years later, I took it to mean just this: that one cannot express such things in words and therefore cannot pass it on to another. Faith - with any luck - is personal.

Humbly
Hermit

Ps. Thank you for info about blog. I’ve not written there in many years.

Yes; I am not a theist but the matter of our living and dying cannot, ultimately, be verbalised imo.
(Regarding the blog - You're not exactly prolific on this forum )

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Yes; I am not a theist but the matter of our living and dying cannot, ultimately, be verbalised imo.
(Regarding the blog - You're not exactly prolific on this forum )

Hah no, prolific is not me anywhere

 

[Hawkins]

So can one understand history or not.
So can one understand foreign history or not.

 

[tayla]

• Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when they are a reading a translation of it?

• Can person X really claim to know/understand a text if they do not accurately know, first hand, the culture/idioms of the authors/receipants/transmitters of the most ancient and authorative versions of the text?

• Can person X really claim to know/understand a text when the language of the text is several thousand years old and person X is not even slightly fluent in the language the text was written in?

Person X must be a qualified scholar having the required skill to understand a text of the kind presented.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know how they say you can't understand the Quran if you don't know Arabic? It's true to an extent. There will be things you won't understand, know of or appreciate. It's also true there are Arabic speaking people who don't understand the Quran.

I think that's unnecessary. Or rather the answer is, yes.

I would say hard work weighs more than what one happens to know due to their background.

I'd rather concentrate on discussing the details than on whether or not someone could be said to understand a text. If it turns out, after discussing several issues, that they are entirely wrong, one could say, they don't understand the text.

Do not steal is a pretty basic concept in any language. Naturally in order to become a lawyer one would have to know the in's and out's of a law or basic concept maybe to get a person off the hook, if you understand my point. Also, in order for anyone to read any language whatsoever, he would need to be taught.