Should we really trust man to tell us what "God's words" meant?

[we-live-now]

I think he means no one has the right to translate the original words to be believed.
Research now is free and easy with online sources. I am happy that people have worked hard on translation and knowing The Word. If they had not we would not know any of it. They are all dead. But we are not.

The Curses of Disobedience
…29and you will grope at noon, as the blind man gropes in darkness, and you will not prosper in your ways; but you shall only be oppressed and robbed continually, with none to save you.30"You shall betroth a wife, but another man will violate her; you shall build a house, but you will not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but you will not use its fruit.31"Your ox shall be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will not eat of it; your donkey shall be torn away from you, and will not be restored to you; your sheep shall be given to your enemies, and you will have none to save you

Yes, this is very good.

It says in the "last days knowledge will increase".

I believe we are entering that now and if the Bible is truly God's Word, he will reveal it to us via knowledge. True knowledge which I believe will be the intersection of the physical (science) and the spiritual (faith) as more of the "hidden" appears to us in our rational minds. More and more will "make sense" to non "religious" people who think on their own. Cool stuff.

 

[CMike]

Ok, I have been thinking about this for a while now.

I am no formal "Biblical scholar" or trained theologian with a "Dr." before or letters after my name. Just a normal guy. Whatever "normal" or "guy" looks like or means.

Whether we believe the scriptures are true or not, we had to at one point trust someone tell us what they mean by translating them into our own languages. This means they get to choose what "God" is telling us.

Isn't this a LOT of power to give to a person or a group of people? What makes them qualified to tell us what "God" was saying or meaning? (if they were from "God")

Then, on top of that, we have many different versions of the translated words in each language called "translations". Most of them don't agree. I am also finding at times that entire original words were overlooked or skipped and not translated at all. To me, this is scandalous if these messages or "signs" were truly from "God". If these are from God and are 100% accurate "truth" then shouldn't they all agree and be 100% precise?

What if man was/is wrong when he told us what the original words meant? What if he mixed in his own (false) ideas of what and "who" he thought "God" was? Another related thought is: shouldn't one original word or "sign" (as I call it) mean one-single thing always (and not "sometimes mean this" and "sometimes mean that")?

Could man be getting the meaning wrong because man thinks God is inside time and is changing? But what if God is outside of all time and doesn't change? What if his words never change either and always mean one, single thing or truth?

Sorry for the length. Pick something and share your thoughts....

Assuming you are talking about the Torah, you can learn Hebrew and read it for yourself.

It really depends on how much you truely care to read it for yourself.

I can understand Hebrew.

 

[savagewind]

You do not need to read Hebrew. Someone already broke it down into it's parts.
Strong's Hebrew: 2637. חָסֵר (chaser) -- to lack, need, be lacking, decrease
Reading it with prayerful attention and hover over each possible meaning. A picture will emerge. Some words have many meanings. Reading what men have said it means, even in it's original language, does not help much I think.

 

[allfoak]

 

[Whiterain]

I was recently thinking about it myself, "trust". Trust is what makes powerful movement's happen - growing more clear now. Most of these spiritual and religious event hopefully weren't all pioneered on one bold person's courage to lead others in a spiritual movement. I'm not against the ideal's of mental illness like schizophrenia and all, it must take place. No matter how convincing and bold my own experiences have been I have been unable to commit to them, they're entirely outlandish to modern dogma.

I was ordered down by my own machinations to compromise. No movement here, just allegory mentions of the Gods.

That is the Pope's right and the Pope seems to openly mention his faith and connection to the High.

But if I trust someone, I don't even trust myself - no matter how many times the Gods have re-affirmed their existence to me, in the most bold of ways.

Then again, Who am I? I'm a trollop, a whore and skank and it takes a forsaken amount of alcohol to get me drunk. Bad news for me, I presumed... Hmph...

 

[savagewind]

The best way is to compare it with other scriptures with the same word. Psalm 23:1 compare Psalm 34:10. Someone wrote (Psalm 23:10) The lions may grow weak and hungry, but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing. Good thing? People should want good things as God is good says The Lord. It is written. Mind says "that doesn't make sense". So lookup the word translated "good". Oh! It means desirable. Now the meaning changes. Doesn't it?

The lions want but go hungry; they who seek יְ֝הוָ֗ה (God) not do want all what is pleasant.

Wanting to satisfy a person's own desires is like a lion who is hungry but goes without. To seek The Lord is to refrain from going after desire.

Do not be planning ahead for the desires of the flesh. Romans 13:14
Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.

Before the internet it might have taken me weeks or months or even years to do what I did in five minutes. OK ten minutes.

 

[Willamena]

Could man be getting the meaning wrong because man thinks God is inside time and is changing? But what if God is outside of all time and doesn't change? What if his words never change either and always mean one, single thing or truth?

Sorry for the length. Pick something and share your thoughts....

What if man tells us that he's not to be trusted about what god's word is, that we should trust ourselves instead. Should we trust him?

 

[savagewind]

It means they got both of them wrong.

 

[Willamena]

It means they got both of them wrong.

Or someone did.

 

[savagewind]

Or someone did.

OK. I do not understand innuendo. Do you mean me? Cute!

 

[Willamena]

OK. I do not understand innuendo. Do you mean me? Cute!

No, honey. Can there be any right or wrong in a dilemma?

 

[savagewind]

There is no evidence a god fearing person will go without life's necessities. To teach it is what God's word says is to teach there are no god fearing people as everyone will go without.

So not wanting to throw scripture to the wind it must mean that God's Word says do not be in want for the things of this world.

 

[savagewind]

It is possible and I think likely that Hebrew scripture was twisted in the First Century. If it said "Trust in The Lord and lack nothing" then people who feel like they were lacking would either feel guilty they were not feeling satisfied or they might think they were not doing enough to be considered The Lord's people. Either one is bad, not good. It would be considered a bad seed and bad seeds multiply.

Now it is happening again.

Religious authority says we should consider actual people are weeds but weeds are bad ideas and bad ideas multiply which is a FACT. Bad people do not multiply but each person stands before The Lord for good or for bad alone.

 

[Whiterain]

It is possible and I think likely that Hebrew scripture was twisted in the First Century. If it said "Trust in The Lord and lack nothing" then people who feel like they were lacking would either feel guilty they were not feeling satisfied or they might think they were not doing enough to be considered The Lord's people. Either one is bad, not good. It would be considered a bad seed and bad seeds multiply.

Now it is happening again.

Religious authority says we should consider actual people are weeds but weeds are bad ideas and bad ideas multiply which is a FACT. Bad people do not multiply but each person stands before The Lord for good or for bad alone.

I'm out...

 

[JamesYaqub]

Ok, I have been thinking about this for a while now.

I am no formal "Biblical scholar" or trained theologian with a "Dr." before or letters after my name. Just a normal guy. Whatever "normal" or "guy" looks like or means.

Whether we believe the scriptures are true or not, we had to at one point trust someone tell us what they mean by translating them into our own languages. This means they get to choose what "God" is telling us.

Isn't this a LOT of power to give to a person or a group of people? What makes them qualified to tell us what "God" was saying or meaning? (if they were from "God")

Then, on top of that, we have many different versions of the translated words in each language called "translations". Most of them don't agree. I am also finding at times that entire original words were overlooked or skipped and not translated at all. To me, this is scandalous if these messages or "signs" were truly from "God". If these are from God and are 100% accurate "truth" then shouldn't they all agree and be 100% precise?

What if man was/is wrong when he told us what the original words meant? What if he mixed in his own (false) ideas of what and "who" he thought "God" was? Another related thought is: shouldn't one original word or "sign" (as I call it) mean one-single thing always (and not "sometimes mean this" and "sometimes mean that")?

Could man be getting the meaning wrong because man thinks God is inside time and is changing? But what if God is outside of all time and doesn't change? What if his words never change either and always mean one, single thing or truth?

Sorry for the length. Pick something and share your thoughts....

Most of us believe in God as being some sort of super person who speaks in terms anyone can understand. This is the problem. God does exist but "he" is not a personality who speaks. Rather intermediaries (people we call prophets) serve as go betweens to humanity. They do not listen to words which then have to merely be transcribed. Instead they are sensitive to thoughts, ideas and visions of things that are essential for us. They then speak or write about what they have "witnessed". They are privy to God's purpose and speak accordingly. Since prophets are, in other ways, just men or women like any of us they communicate what they've learned in the idioms and through the cultural norms of their day. As time goes on these externals change. This is why, today, we may read things in the Old Testament which seem barbaric to the point of being illegal if practice in our times. For instance try selling a daughter into slavery in America and see what happens to you.

The proper way to read scripture then is to develop the ability to discern how we have changed over the centuries and to act accordingly. Those who seem to want to believe literally are always careful never to mention those parts of scripture which would cause trouble for them. The "Word" does not come from God. God transmits ideas and impulses only. The prophet then changes these into words. This is the way it is and this explains the many seeming conflicts that exist in scripture.

The progressive forms of religions are always those that are freest from conflicts. Thinking people know this.

 

[glori]

I myself certainly don't trust anyone else's theory's of what the scriptures mean, I go within and meditate on the words until I have the answer, it may not be your answer, but its mine.

 

[we-live-now]

Nice post. The entire bible and scriptures are spiritual. Mans carnal mind and false calling has created his own empire and religion. The entire bible is talking about the human body and the destruction and building of it within by the Lord. It's all symbolic and metaphorical. All we see is divide and arguing. Their is only one truth. Anything outward, literal, is false teaching. The transformation happens INSIDE a man's body, brain, mind, heart. The Lord's temple. either mans will and ego and pride is reining or the Lords. All within. Nothing external. Church buildings are all vain. Saddens me.

I love this response. My heart agrees wholeheartedly with it!

 

[we-live-now]

Who, then, would translate the words into modern language from the original ancient texts and languages?
What do you not trust about today's translations?
Why are you so concerned that you write hours a day?

Question 1: Who will translate the words into modern language? The LIVING Word inside us. (Jesus, the Son) But, I agree that we need a starting point. We just can't trust that as a "be-all, end-all".

Question 2: What do I not trust? Lots, but it takes a spiritual "awakening" within us to see it. Sorry I can't give a better answer.

Question 3: Why am I so concerned about the hours? Nice one. I only mention that to speak to our "outer man" who demands "credibility". He won't listen to someone he stamps as "not worthy". Just letting you know I didn't "just fall off the turnip truck".

 

[Sunstone]

Ok, I have been thinking about this for a while now.

I am no formal "Biblical scholar" or trained theologian with a "Dr." before or letters after my name. Just a normal guy. Whatever "normal" or "guy" looks like or means.

Whether we believe the scriptures are true or not, we had to at one point trust someone tell us what they mean by translating them into our own languages. This means they get to choose what "God" is telling us.

Isn't this a LOT of power to give to a person or a group of people? What makes them qualified to tell us what "God" was saying or meaning? (if they were from "God")

Then, on top of that, we have many different versions of the translated words in each language called "translations". Most of them don't agree. I am also finding at times that entire original words were overlooked or skipped and not translated at all. To me, this is scandalous if these messages or "signs" were truly from "God". If these are from God and are 100% accurate "truth" then shouldn't they all agree and be 100% precise?

What if man was/is wrong when he told us what the original words meant? What if he mixed in his own (false) ideas of what and "who" he thought "God" was? Another related thought is: shouldn't one original word or "sign" (as I call it) mean one-single thing always (and not "sometimes mean this" and "sometimes mean that")?

Could man be getting the meaning wrong because man thinks God is inside time and is changing? But what if God is outside of all time and doesn't change? What if his words never change either and always mean one, single thing or truth?

Sorry for the length. Pick something and share your thoughts....

Scriptures, bah. There's no substitute for experience.

 

[we-live-now]

I was recently thinking about it myself, "trust". Trust is what makes powerful movement's happen - growing more clear now. Most of these spiritual and religious event hopefully weren't all pioneered on one bold person's courage to lead others in a spiritual movement. I'm not against the ideal's of mental illness like schizophrenia and all, it must take place. No matter how convincing and bold my own experiences have been I have been unable to commit to them, they're entirely outlandish to modern dogma.

I was ordered down by my own machinations to compromise. No movement here, just allegory mentions of the Gods.

That is the Pope's right and the Pope seems to openly mention his faith and connection to the High.

But if I trust someone, I don't even trust myself - no matter how many times the Gods have re-affirmed their existence to me, in the most bold of ways.

Then again, Who am I? I'm a trollop, a whore and skank and it takes a forsaken amount of alcohol to get me drunk. Bad news for me, I presumed... Hmph...

Man, I have NO idea what you are saying at some points, but I have a small idea that I may agree with you!