Board index ‹ Bible

[Newbie]

With the following presupposition in mind: a - You believe the bible is the absolute word of God

With no doubt in mind, the Bible has to be one of the most widely known pieces of literature ever. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of translations and interpretations of the Bible, spanning across languages and cultures. In the English language alone there are over one hundred interpretations. I do understand there are word-for-word and thought-for-thought translations of the bible. However, the Bible itself has also been reworded and changed many times over history. We know the Bible was originally written in mostly Hebrew and Greek, and much of the context is entirely cultural and even some direct translations lose meaning due to language and cultural barriers.

With all of this in mind, which version of the bible would be the most accurate interpretation of the word of God? If so, can you justify that? Are the other denominations and their interpretations incorrect, even if it is the same religion?

As a counterpoint, with the widespread disagreement on translations and meanings branching off to different denominations of one religion, does this not splinter the validity of the text? With so much human interference, how does one discern truth?

My real questioning of this is even amongst a community of spiritual followers, there seems to be a fundamental disagreement on how to follow their own religion.

[jimwalton]

As you have said, some translations are word-for-word, and others are thought-for-thought. Bible translation (as with translating any language) can sometimes be a tricky business, and there is always a healthy discussion about whether to stick to the words themselves (even if it doesn't make particular sense in our culture and in our language), or whether to translate more dynamically, making sure we catch the meaning and intent.

The Bible was mostly written in Hebrew and Greek (and a little of it in Aramaic), and the context is entirely cultural. We have to understand the historical culture to truly understand the words written out of that culture. And you're right that some direct translations lose meaning due to language and cultural barriers.

That's why it makes sense to study the Bible and not just read it superficially. It's very easy to misunderstand it if we merely read it and think we've got it. As with any literature, discussion into what's behind the text is usually beneficial. No one would just read Shakespeare and think they had it. Behind his words are irony, nuance, historical references, satire, hyperbole, and dozens of other magnificent literary tools. So also in the Bible, since it is a work of literature.

Which version most accurately interprets the Word of God? They each have their strengths and weaknesses. You can't just say, "Oh, this one is perfect with no shortcomings." Language and translation are always trade-offs. It can be helpful to read different translations to get a more balanced gist. And sometimes it helps to dig back into the original language for explanations.

> widespread disagreement on translations and meanings branching off to different denominations of one religion

Um, I'm not aware that denominations split over translations. They usually came about through doctrinal differences.

> does this not splinter the validity of the text

People's disputes don't affect the validity of the text. There are SO many manuscripts of the Bible, and SOOOOO many pieces of manuscripts that we can be certain about roughly more than 98% of what is there. It's an incredible percentile for a document so old.

[Chip Fox]

> to study the Bible and not just read it superficially

This is what frustrated me the most about Christianity. "Bible studies" were just bible worship in church groups. People would just discuss what it meant to them or guess at what it might mean. When I got to study the Bible academically to find the actual meanings based on the original languages, various context, exegesis, etc... it was a very different experience. Something I think should be taught in Churches, but no one would ever want to do.

> many pieces of manuscripts that we can be certain about roughly more than 98% of what is there

It's true, it's 98% put together from fragments of copies, there are no originals however. Copies of copies do not make it more attested as pastors like to claim, and it does not mean there aren't problems with what was originally written.

[jimwalton]

> This is what frustrated me the most about Christianity

Me too. Too often Bible studies seem to be more like, "Let's all share our opinions and then go home having learned nothing." Very frustrating, I agree. I study the Bible from several different angles—original languages, contexts, historical background, cultural milieu—and I agree with you that it's a very different experience, and definitely something that should be taught in churches.

> it's 98% put together from fragments of copies

That's true, but let's play a little game. Suppose I sent you a text that read, "My frend is going to the store." Drat, I see the mistake after I send it, so I re-send, "My friend is doing to the store." Dang autocorrect, so I send again: "My friend is going to the story." Yeesh, can't get this right. Now, from these three, do you think you could piece together what I actually said? Of course you could. And the more texts I sent (even some correct ones), the better a chance you would have. Suppose I was writing a whole paragraph, but I sent 30 texts to get it right? My guess is it would still be easy to figure out. Now, we have close to 6000 "text messages" of the NT in Greek, 10,000 in Latin, and close to 10,000 in others languages. With that kind of material, we can get oh so close with quite a bit of certainty to what was originally written.

> there are no originals however

This is actually unknown, but probably true. The gospels were most likely not written down until a period of oral transmission, so are some of the fragments we have part of the first copies? Probably not, but who knows.

> Copies of copies do not make it more attested as pastors like to claim

Actually copies of copies are what help us to be close to absolutely certain that we have the real text. The more copies we have, the more accurate our understanding of what the original text was. We can be better than 95% certain that we have better than 95% of the original text, a percentage extremely far higher than any other ancient document.

[Chip Fox]

> We can be better than 95% certain that we have better than 95% of the original text, a percentage extremely far higher than any other ancient document.

Unless you actually have the original of a document of course.

Yes, I agree you can get a decent idea of what was written. I've argued that myself. These fragments also give us a good idea of which passages were forged in the bible. Having lots of fragments does not mean that there weren't things added or left out such as Mark 16 or John 7:53-8:11.

I'd also have to argue the English translations do make a big difference to the average reader. It's the difference between dragons and unicorns, a gay rapture or a straight one, etc... That's why some churches promote one version over another. I doubt most churches offer courses in hermeneutics for the average member, but it wouldn't hurt.

[jimwalton]

> Unless you actually have the original of a document of course.

That would be nice, but the odds are slim to none. The problem is, even if we had an original we wouldn't know it. We could carbon date it to the approximate time, but we'd never know if we had an original.

> These fragments also give us a good idea of which passages were forged in the bible.

Very true. But the multiplicity of fragments helps us assess that.

> I'd also have to argue the English translations do make a big difference to the average reader.

I agree again. But hopefully enough people realize that English wasn't the original language of the Bible, and all translations are compromises, but maybe that's hoping too much. Courses in hermeneutics would be helpful, too. Whatever can be done to help people understand it correctly and wisely is an advantage.

[chip Fox]

> Whatever can be done to help people understand it correctly and wisely is an advantage.

Hopefully that doesn't including jumping to a conclusion that it's a perfect book before actually studying it.

[jimwalton]

Agreed. Scholarly or religious bias is just as stupid with the Bible as it is with science or any other discipline. The object is to find the truth, not to assume the truth and ignore all evidence to the contrary. If the Bible is true, it can stand all the objective scrutiny anyone can throw at it.