tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post8086121464572567981..comments2024-03-28T10:26:20.408-04:00Comments on Ponderings on a Faith Journey: Controlling the Words -- SightingsRobert Cornwallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04581876323110725024noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-46245139606659293902009-10-08T20:14:41.188-04:002009-10-08T20:14:41.188-04:00Sorry, I just found this inspiring, speaks to the ...Sorry, I just found this inspiring, speaks to the trinity (if we want to believe this, why stop at three?) and Pharisees (too self centered?), so I’m not sure where to post it.<br /><br />This gives voice to why I returned to the church. “Religion's role in the 21st century: Will its dogmas divide us? Or will it unite us for common good?” I want to be part of an organized solution at last. David Mc<br /><br />http://cyberspiritcafe.blogspot.com/<br /><br />http://www.ted.com/talks/karen_armstrong_let_s_revive_the_golden_rule.html<br /><br />http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/we-should-not-treat-other-nations-as-we-would-not-want-to-be-treated-ourselves.html#moreAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-56712436761028460782009-10-08T20:06:41.494-04:002009-10-08T20:06:41.494-04:00John,
I couldn't agree with you more. How c...John, <br /><br />I couldn't agree with you more. How can the finite hold the infinite? That's my quarrel with the Fundamentalists who try to make their relative truths ultimate for all. This is part of the evil I think you refer to. Thanks for the clarification; I really didn’t believe you went fundie all of a sudden!Stevehttp://www-clergyunited.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-45714400996393097372009-10-08T19:50:38.847-04:002009-10-08T19:50:38.847-04:00Anyway, we are at a critical point in history. Don...Anyway, we are at a critical point in history. Don't get caught looking backward so much.<br /><br />http://vimeo.com/6859038<br /><br />David McAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-63606586445449322602009-10-08T19:18:36.071-04:002009-10-08T19:18:36.071-04:00The Bible is so much a history book. What's wr...The Bible is so much a history book. What's wrong with seeing the past as it was? In another 100 years they'll have Jesus dying by lethal injection because they can't fathom crucifixion (well, it's hard for me too). <br /><br />Are we to rewrite the holocaust too? David McAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-29406524823549025892009-10-08T17:34:18.419-04:002009-10-08T17:34:18.419-04:00Steve,
Perhaps I was unclear, I think proper inte...Steve,<br /><br />Perhaps I was unclear, I think proper interpretation can point in the direction of truth, but TRUTH is only arrived at by presumption.<br /><br />Inspired and informed interpretation can suggest truthfilled lessons, but I believe the TRUTH is simply unattainable for humans. To claim to possess TRUTH is at best naive at worst evil, and all too often it invites adherents to violence.<br /><br />JohnJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06245470576919732592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-12192132916712548462009-10-08T17:09:34.401-04:002009-10-08T17:09:34.401-04:00it is a theological statement that we have transla...it is a theological statement that we have translations at all. Most, maybe all, other religions do not. Their scriptures are only scripture when read/spoken in the language of the founder. For example, if a Muslim wants to really read the Koran, it must be in Arabic. They recognize that language reflects a paradigm of reality and to translate to another language, by definition, involves moving to a new paradigm.<br /><br />In allowing for translations, we are saying that the Bible is a living document that must be changed (translated) to speak in different contexts.<br /><br />All that said, I think you are correct Steve, that we need to allow the text to speak for itself, reflecting it's context and paradigm as much as is possible. All the while, though, we must realize the impossibility of that task. Then, we apply interpretation that allows it to speak to our context.royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00508828835908673347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-28102875478941729362009-10-08T16:34:49.887-04:002009-10-08T16:34:49.887-04:00John, your very insightful response worries me to ...John, your very insightful response worries me to this extent: You assume that the translation you prefer is "the TRUTH." It may be the truth, but it is not translation; it is closer to legislation. Rather than have the translator's opinion of the truth, I would rather have the proper translation.<br /><br />Both of us may be consoled/irritated by the reality that anyone can prove anything with the Bible regardless of how it's translated! Since this is true, let's at least begin with an interpretive neutral translation. (I know this is virtually impossible, but let's not throw in the towel before we begin the effort.) I think the untrained and poorly trained need at least that much of our respect.Stevehttp://www.clergyunited.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-40657700078361563682009-10-08T15:55:56.651-04:002009-10-08T15:55:56.651-04:00I think Steve is onto something. It behooves us n...I think Steve is onto something. It behooves us not to paper over the flaws in the Bible. Instead, we should confront them head on, admit they are flaws, and see how we can learn from them. To try to make the Bible more palatable so that we can swallow it whole is based on an assumption that we have to somehow swallow the Bible whole in the first place.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-60252341454978190172009-10-08T15:18:16.458-04:002009-10-08T15:18:16.458-04:00Steve,
You are prepared to do the exegetical work...Steve,<br /><br />You are prepared to do the exegetical work to arrive at a helpful understanding which takes account of context, then and now and derives a teaching which speaks truthfilled messages to a contemporary audience. For you the pimples are important, and they are not an impediment to understanding but a further building block in the process of interpretation.<br /><br />The problem is (and I don't know that careful editing solves it) that many, if not most are not prepared to do the work. The untrained and the poorly trained accept the word as it is written (in English) and presume they have all the interpretive tools needed to understand the TRUTH which is contained in the text. <br /><br />For the untrained and poorly trained who will not look at context, perhaps it is useful not to send them down the wrong interpretational path by using words that are too dangerous for the unprepared? <br /><br />The work of translation is the laden with such choices. It comes down to how the translator understand their repsonsibility.<br /><br />JohnJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06245470576919732592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980286.post-55593926293044609402009-10-08T14:59:13.603-04:002009-10-08T14:59:13.603-04:00Although I endorse wholly Evan's notion that, ...Although I endorse wholly Evan's notion that, "at the end of the day that is what it is all about – controlling the words. Whoever controls the words that are used in translation ultimately controls how we are able to think about theological issues", the translations of the Bible should not enter into this fray. Why? Because in the virtuous effort to rescue the Bible from harm caused by leaving the original intention intact (it is, after all, a highly patriarchal work), we miss the great opportunity to confront the Bible as NOT helpful in a variety of settings, including gender issues. The effort to spin the Bible into any political or theological perspective is to destroy it altogether. We should leave the Bible's pimples intact and apply the Clearasil of relief through good exegesis and theology. I really do want to know what the Bible says, not what I wish it said.<br /><br />So, I would be for maintaining such phrases as “brethren” as opposed to “brothers and sisters” and the like, because Paul (I am convinced) was speaking to men, not men and women, mostly. We need to know this, as to make Paul say something he didn’t mean is to omit the hard work necessary to demonstrate that even though “the Bible says,” we may ignore its present day application due to the inherent patriarchalism that informs it, not the canon of love. If we can't trust a translation of the Bible to reflect its authors’ original intentions, warts and all, then we lose all contact with it as a companion in conversation. We simply would be speaking with ourselves.Stevehttp://www.clergyunited.orgnoreply@blogger.com