May 18, 2002

• Hodgepodge

  
  

  Well, I had a challenging yesterday.  Michael tripped.  As he was falling he reached out to save himself and grabbed the phone cord.  Ripped it out of the wall.  We're talking raw little wires sticking out the end of the cord.  Not a pretty sight.  There I was staring at those tiny little wires and feeling that sick bubble in the pit of my stomach because I knew this meant NO INTERNET until Tim could get home and do that magic thing that makes all of life better.

  
  

  After an hour I was desparate.  I dug out a screwdriver and took the faceplate off the place where the little wires connect me to the outside world.  It was amazing.  There were little wires running here there and everywhere.  I had been hoping that there would be an obvious place to plug them in.  It not only WASN'T obvious, I couldn't see anyplace that looked like wires ahd ever been connected.  I put the face plate back.

  
  

  The kids and I cleaned house, played Uno, played with the hot wheels cars, I finished reading a book, then we cleaned house again, played Uno again, played with the Brio train - I finished a second book.

  
  

  By the time that Tim got home I was exhausted.  I retired to the bubble bath while he performed that magic trick with the wiring.

  
  

  Ask and You Shall Receive

  
  

  dwaber asked, Which version of the bible do you prefer, and why?  On a related note, how do you account for there being so many versions of the one true word of god? 

  
  

  Dan, I'm glad you asked.  Really.  This question gets right to the heart of one of my biggest peeves about people (not just Christians although the remainder of this blog will be devoted to haranguing them. )

  
  

  I assume that you are asking why there are so many different English translations.  I think it goes back to the beginnings of the story of the English Bible.  The Church had a policy that forbade translation.  This effectively kept the Bible away from the common people and gave enormous control to Church leadership who interpreted it.

  
  

  All the early translators (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Miles Coverdale) were persecuted to varying degrees - Tyndale was burned at the stake for his efforts.  This set a certain tone that was difficult to overcome.  So when the English monarchs finally got behind the translation idea for their own political reasons, the translators were very conscious of the need to present a pleasing version of the Holy Scriptures.

  
  

  From the beginning there were translation errors.  Some accidental and some deliberate (for example, in the New Testament the name "Jacob" was translated "James" to please King James.)  Also from the beginning there have been revisions and improved versions all seeking to provide a translation that is closer in meaning to the original documents.

  
  

  For the most part I applaud these efforts.  On the other hand, I think that we forget that we are always looking at a document that is at best a translation, but in many cases it is a paraphrase or "interpretation" of the original documents.  It seems self-evident that any paraphrase will include the prejudices of the author.  A more subtle difficulty in bible study is recognizing that even a straight translation can also include prejudices. 

  
  

  The Greek language (the primary language of the New Testament autographs) was precise and nuanced.  Much more so than English.  Often times English words will have a range of meaning where the original Greek words had a very narrow meaning.  My favorite example is the English work "know."  There are two Greek words that are translated "know" in the New Testament.  These words have critically different meanings.  They distinguish between experiential knowlege - the kind of knowing that can be acquired through study, and intuitive knowledge - the kind of knowledge that is available only to the person who perforns the action.  This difference produces some confusing verses in the English versions.  If you look at Matthew 24 Verses 32 - 36 you find a passage in which Jesus is teaching his disciples about the time of the end.  In verse 33 he says "when you see these things you know that it is near" then in verse 36 he says "But as to that day and hour, no one knows, neither the angels of heaven but my Father only."  So which is it?  Can we know or not?  In the first verse the word for know is the word for acquired knowledge - if you study the signs you will know.  The second verse is a translation of the word for intuitive knowledge.  No one can just know except the person who performs the action - which in this verse is God alone.

  
  

  Which version of the Bible do I use for study?  I have a CD Rom that contains 10 different English versions, plus the Greek and Hebrew.  For devotional reading I like the Jerusalem Bible.  For study I like to compare the New American Standard to the New International Version.  The NAS is a word for word translation.  The NIV translates phrase for phrase.  My pastor, Darrel, likes the New Revised Standard Version because the translators chose gender inclusive language - it's more user friendly.

  
  

  Language is a flexible slippery vehicle for transmitting meaning.  Anyone who studies the Bible seriously quickly comes to the understanding that the words "inerrant and infallible" as used by many fundamentalists are misleading and incorrect.  Theologians use those words to mean that the concepts revealed in the Bible are anchored in absolute reality.  Fundamentalists use those words to exalt the specific word choices of the Biblical authors.  This leads to a very dangerous position of trying to live according to the "letter" as opposed the "spirit" of the Word.  I believe that it is possible to open the Bible and meet God.  But, I think that it is dangerous to assume that the specifics of your encounter are the standard by which all encounters of God are to be measured.

  • 11:15 am
  • 17 Comments