As requested, here is the verse. But just so it isn't closed, I will turn it into a topic for debate.

From 'The Complete Jewish Bible, by David H Stern' (and there is no commentary on it, Jack):

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 He was with God in the beginning.

3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing made had being.

----------------------------------------

This concept has been a matter of contention amongst the Christians circles for a long time.

Some believe that there is NO trinity, since it is never specifically mentioned in the Bible, while others see Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit as the three "persons" in one.

For those that do believe in the trinity, this verse clearly tells us that Jesus was with God from the beginning, and that the Bible is Jesus, and therefore God.

Any Christians here (or non-Christians that know the Bible pretty well) that either agree or disagree with this ?

1. Do you believe in the trinity, and why ?

2. If you don't believe in the trinity, who is the "he"/"him" referenced here in the book of John ?

I want to thankyou for posting that. JWitnesses are coming over on sat and that should be interesting to show that a jewish translation is evident.

I believe in the trinity mainly because he is refered to God several time throughout the bible as well his name meaning 'Jehovah is salvation'

thanks digi.

I;m told by greek scholars that there are at least 4 or 5 ways of translating the 'word was god'(the whole chunk appears to be an antiphonal hymn).

these different translation possibilities cover various obtuse points of koine grammar and i neither understand them nor feel qualified to comment on them.

however any bible which fails to at least provide a footnote coverage of these points is unlikely to be of interest to serious students http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

most serious translations play safe and opt for the neutral 'the word was divine'

---------

as to the doctrine of the trinity

the origins of it are well documented. like so much of the bastardised neo-mithraic sex cult called christianity ,it has no biblical foundation.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

As requested, here is the verse. But just so it isn't closed, I will turn it into a topic for debate.

From 'The Complete Jewish Bible, by David H Stern' (and there is no commentary on it, Jack):

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 He was with God in the beginning.

3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing made had being.



First. You know this is very spiritually deep, right?

Yes, I believe in the trinity.

This is in the amplified.

I DO NOT RECOMMEND THE AMPLIFIED BIBLE, I use it to expound.

John Chapter 1

1:IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [b]Himself.(A)

2:He was present originally with God.

3:All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

4:In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men.

1 John Chapter 1

1:[WE ARE writing] about the Word of Life [[a]in] Him Who existed from the beginning, Whom we have heard, Whom we have seen with our [own] eyes, Whom we have gazed upon [for ourselves] and have touched with our [own] hands.

2:And the Life [[b]an aspect of His being] was revealed (made manifest, demonstrated), and we saw [as eyewitnesses] and are testifying to and declare to you the Life, the eternal Life [[c]in Him] Who already existed with the Father and Who [actually] was made visible (was revealed) to us [His followers].

3:What we have seen and [ourselves] heard, we are also telling you, so that you too may [d]realize and enjoy fellowship as partners and partakers with us. And [this] fellowship that we have [which is a [e]distinguishing mark of Christians] is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ (the Messiah).

Why?

Jesus was the perfect will of the Father made Flesh.

Oneness isn't logical either..

Why would Jesus pray to himself?

Matthew Chapter 26

39:And going a little farther, He threw Himself upon the ground on His face and prayed saying, My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will [not what I desire], but as You will and desire.

They say Jesus is God, but I don't see Jesus saying, "Let not my will, but MY WILL be done." It doesn't make sense.

I am not Christian (as you already know), but I am with Jack in that the trinity is not biblically supported. That said, I don't see the reason for believing in it.

It seems to me that the Trinity is directly taken from the pagan concepts of Mother (Holy Spirit), Father (God), and Child (Jesus).

Just my view.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

thanks digi.

I;m told by greek scholars that there are at least 4 or 5 ways of translating the 'word was god'(the whole chunk appears to be an antiphonal hymn).

[quote][b]these different translation possibilities cover various obtuse points of koine grammar and i neither understand them nor feel qualified to comment on them.

Me either.

quote:however any bible which fails to at least provide a footnote coverage of these points is unlikely to be of interest to serious students http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

I am certainly a serious Bible student, and I don't need the passages spelled out for me, since I have several other references to use.

Hebrew Dictionaries, Strong's Concordances and various other texts help me understand the Bible.

The reason I chose this one is that it is translated by a Jew. He is not trying to explain the meaning of the Bible, he is trying to give an accurate translation.

That is the function of this Bible.

As a serious Bible student, I wouldn't expect you to rely on the interpretations of

publisher's and their ilk to guide you through the word of God.

quote:most serious translations play safe and opt for the neutral 'the word was divine'

The translation is what the Greek or the Hebrew said.

No need to play it safe.

---------

quote:as to the doctrine of the trinity

the origins of it are well documented. like so much of the bastardised neo-mithraic sex cult called christianity ,it has no biblical foundation.

I am sure others would like to read up on this.

Got links ?

Give me links, and I will give you Biblical foundation for the trinity.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Ok...here are the Greek words in this verse, and it's English translation (you tell ME how inaccurate this translation [The Complete Jewish Bible] is !):

The numbers following each word is the Strong's reference

en = "In" ( 1722 primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest)

arche = "the beginning" ( 746 )

en = "was" ( past tense: Strong's 2258 )

logos = "the Word" ( 3056 )

kai = "and" ( 2532 )

logos = the Word

en = was (past tense)

pros = with ( 4314 )

theos = God ( 2316 of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity)

kai = and

logos = the Word

en = was

theos = God

I don't see how Mr. Stern's translation skills are lacking...therefore, he is reputable enough to escape "unworthiness" in the eyes of "serious Bible students".

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ok...here are the Greek words in this verse, and it's English translation (you tell ME how inaccurate this translation [The Complete Jewish Bible] is !):

The numbers following each word is the Strong's reference

en = "In" ( 1722 primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest)

arche = "the beginning" ( 746 )

en = "was" ( past tense: Strong's 2258 )

logos = "the Word" ( 3056 )

kai = "and" ( 2532 )

logos = the Word

en = was (past tense)

pros = with ( 4314 )

theos = God ( 2316 of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity)

kai = and

logos = the Word

en = was

theos = God

I don't see how Mr. Stern's translation skills are lacking...therefore, he is reputable enough to escape "unworthiness" in the eyes of "serious Bible students".



first off,good morning.it's 07 am here and i've only had 2 coffees so far .therefore anything i say is to be taken as shaky.

infact too shaky to reply at all. i'll answer later...when the jackketch body feels like it belongs to jackketch again.

Why is it a jewish bible? Is that just the old testimate translated by a jew with the new testimat pasted on?

Bbw Christianity tends to be a sex cult, with the members obsessed with sex but unwilling to talk about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norns = t3h trinity???

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

It's a free forum, but I would prefer it if you didn't muck up my threads.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-02-2005).]

http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh01v01.htm

" anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative,"

yeah riiiight...

this is were jackketch gives up. suffice to know that the translation of 'the word was god' is no where near as simple as many christians appear to think.

digi, did you know that there are over 361 serious variant readings of john 1 ,1-5?

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/pub/Analysis-PCA.html

which seems well done,as far as i can tell. although to be frank i have difficulty after all these years getting to grips with it.

digi, do you begin to realise now what i mean about 'serious student'? this is the kind of level serious students work at.



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-02-2005).]

I didn't think it was simple.

What I think is "simple" is the fact that there are these texts, written in Hebrew and Greek (as well as Aramaic), and this guy who wrote my Bible translated them.

Why is that so difficult, and why should more be read into it than what is there ?

First, you deny God His supernatural ability to control His own book by insinuating that the Bible is not currently His infallible word. If the Bible we have today is NOT sufficient for His purpose, He would not have allowed us to have it.

Second, He allows us to understand of Him exactly what is necessary, and that understanding differs from person to person.

The individual who wrote that website you posted obviously wants to understand the finites, of which I am not too sure are all that important. What sort of spiritual significance could knowing such things bring ?

Last, I would just like to know where you are coming from...do you, or don't you believe in God (Christian) ?

Do you, or don't you believe the Bible to be God's word ?

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-02-2005).]

quote:What I think is "simple" is the fact that there are these texts, written in Hebrew and Greek, and this guy who wrote my Bible translated them.

that's your problem right there. you're basing your study on erroneous assumptions.

if it is a good translation then somewhere in the preface he'll probably tell you which texts he used.

*needs another coffee*...or two..

He does tell me...Mesoretic texts.

He did not use the Septuagint.

Is that sufficient for you ?

That's just the OT, though...I have to stop.

I am too exhausted to give this argument my full attention.

I am sorry, Jack.

I'll be back.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:The individual who wrote that website you posted obviously wants to understand the finites, of which I am not too sure are all that important. What sort of spiritual significance could knowing such things bring ?

the fact you ask is telling....just as a quick example: the entire reformation and the modern evangelical faith is based upon/draws its authority from one single such 'finites'.

quote:I am too exhausted to give this argument my full attention.

i'd prefer to call it a discussion.

quote:

He does tell me...Mesoretic texts.

He did not use the Septuagint.

oh dear. without the LXX i would think any translation of the NT (yes i do mean NT) would be on very dodgy ground.

serious translations of the OT would take many other documents into account. The Masoretic (sp?) alone is hardly sufficient.

quote:Last, I would just like to know where you are coming from...do you, or don't you believe in God (Christian) ?

Do you, or don't you believe the Bible to be God's word ?

i believe that there is one god (ha shem) and that his messiah was jesus.

silly me, i was under the impression that 'god's word' was jesus...



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-02-2005).]

i've just dragged out one of my 'serious' bible translations

"The Logos existed in the very beginnning,the Logos was with God,the Logos was divine"

Ancient Greeks used to use the word "Logos" to mean many different things. For example, it was once used as the understanding men had of each other and the world around them. Would that not make sense in the context?

In the beginning was the understanding/reasoning, and the understanding/reasoning was with god, and the understanding/reasoning was god.

This was just one of the philosophical views on the word Logos. You have to take that into context when you're translating these scriptures.

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

Ancient Greeks used to use the word "Logos" to mean many different things. For example, it was once used as the understanding men had of each other and the world around them. Would that not make sense in the context?

In the beginning was the understanding/reasoning, and the understanding/reasoning was with god, and the understanding/reasoning was god.

This was just one of the philosophical views on the word Logos. You have to take that into context when you're translating these scriptures.



yep. thats why in a lot of good translations they don't translate 'logos' as 'word' but leave it as logos (which is almost untranslateable into english).

Ok, Jack...I want to back up a few notches here.

You seem to be challenging my ability to choose a good translation, and had asked about the origin of Mr. Stern's translated text.

So, I have painstakingly typed some of his Introduction, word for word, so you can read it for yourself.

Please tell me what you think about the validity of this translation after reading it.

In advance, I will admit ignorance in this area. I only recently began caring about what version of the Bible I read, and I am but 26. I have a long life ahead of me (God willing), and I intend to scrutinize the Bible in great detail (from all texts...I will be studying Hebrew and Greek for the next 4 years, so hopefully this knowledge will give me a small amount of the insight I desire to find on this subject).

------------------------------------------

THE ORIGINAL-LANGUAGE TEXTS UNDERLYING THE COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE

Hebrew/Aramaic Text Used for the Tanakh

Except for the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are more than two thousands years old, the oldest extant Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Tanakh date back to the 9th to 11th centuries C.E. The Tanakh was written originally with only consonants, and the Torah scrolls read today in the synagogue contain only consonants.

In the 6th to 9th centuries a group of scribes called the Masoretes (the word comes from Hebrew masoret, which means “tradition”) developed a system of notation for recording the vowels traditionally used when reading the consonantal text of the Tanakh. Without these, the consonants of most Hebrew words could be pronounced in several ways and given several meanings. For example, if English were written with only consonants, how would you pronounce “st” ? Would it be “sat,” “set,” “sit,” “sot,” “sate,” “seat,” “site,” “soot,” or “suit” ? From context you would know. But there developed a need to make the meanings crystal-clear as Hebrew fell into issue and not all contexts were understood. So the Masoretes recorded the traditional “vowel pointings,” as they are called today; and printed editions of the Tanakh all have them. Moreover, Hebrew is taught with them; and while a modern Israeli reads his newspaper without vowel pointings, a new immigrant to Israel learns how to pronounce Hebrew wit their aid. Moreover, they continue to be used in published editions of Hebrew poetry and in the Jewish prayer books.

In addition, the Masoretes codified a system of punctuation, also included in printed editions of the Tanakh. These “cantillation marks” are used when the Torah is chanted in the synagogue; but their more important use is to clarify which words of the text go together. For example, in a passage familiar to Christians as well as Jews, because the New Testament makes use of it, Yeshu’yahu (Isaiah) 40:3 says, “A voice cries out: ‘Clear a road through the desert for Adonai [the Lord].’”But at Mattityahu (Matthew) 3:3 many translations have something like, “A voice cries out in the desert, ‘Clear a road for Adonai.’” However, the cantillation marks show that “in the desert” tells about the road, not the voice.

The Masoretes modified the written text (the k’tiv, pronounced kuh-teev) in a number of places, so that what is read aloud in the synagogue today (the kere, pronounced keh-ray) differs at these points from what appears in the Torah scroll. One reads, “Know ye that the Lord, He is God; it is he who hath made us, and not we ourselves.” But most other versions, Jewish and Christian alike, follow the kere; thus CJB has, “it is he who made us; and we are his.” If the Hebrew word “lo” in lo anachnu is spelled lamed-alef, it means “not we”, but if its spelled lamed-vav, it means “we are his.” The Masoretes evidently concluded that the author had written “his,” and a scribe had mis-copied the word.

From a Jewish religious point of view, the Masoretic alterations embodied in the kere are the only permitted changes to the received written consonantal text, the k’tiv. But Christian and non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are not constrained by this restriction. Thus they apply the criteria of historical and linguistic scholarship to the Masoretic text in determining its reliability. Moreover, from ancient versions such as the Greek Septuagint they can infer the existence of alternative underlying Hebrew texts, vowel-pointing or punctuation. Here is a well-known instance of how significant this can be.

In Psalm 22, verse 17 of Jewish versions reads, “Like a lion [at] my hands and feet,” while the corresponding verse 16 of Christian versions says, “They pieced my hands and feet.” If this passage prophecies Yeshua’s crucifixion, as Messianic Jews and Christians believe it does, the prophecy is certainly clearer in the Christian versions, since the B’rit Hadashah reports that Yeshua’s hands and feet were nailed to the execution-stake (as CJB calls the cross), but says nothing about lions at his hands and feet. How can two such different meanings arise from the same text ? They don’t; the texts are different. The Masoretic text has the Hebrew word k‘ari (“like a lion”); while Christian versions make use of the Septuagint, where the Greek word implies an underlying Hebrew text with the word karu (“they pierced”). The differences – the presence in the Masoretic Hebrew of the letter alef, and of the letter yud, instead of vav – are both easily explainable as scribal errors (in one direction or another). In this case, as in virtually all cases, the CJB adheres to the Masoretic text, but a footnote gives the alternative rendering and refers to this paragraph of the Introduction. There are hundreds of similar differences, although few are as important for Messianic understanding of the Bible. In general I have not indicated where these differences are, because that is outside the scope of my purposes in preparing the Complete Jewish Bible.

The scholars also use other early versions – Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (430 C.E), the Syriac, Targum Yonatan, and others dating from the 5th century C.E. or earlier. These offer still more readings which add to the possibilities and to the confusion. Scholars frequently find historical, archeological, literary, theological, and logical justification for emending the text itself – that is, correcting it to what they believe it must have originally said. It may well be that the scholars often approach the Hebrew original more closely than the Masoretic text does. However, my choosing to render the Jewish Tanakh obligates me to use the Masoretic text; very rarely do I deviate from it.

The Greek of the B’rit Hadashah

While the Tanakh was written largely in Hebrew (portions of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel are in a related Semitic language, Aramaic), most of the early manuscripts of the New testament are in Greek – not the classical language of Homer or of Plato, but koinê (“common”) Greek, the lingua franca of everyday affairs throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East during the first century.

Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that several of the books of the New Testament were written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, or drew upon source materials in those languages; this case has been made by one scholar or another for all four Gospels, Acts, Revelation, and several of the General Letters. Moreover, Sha’ul (Paul), who letters were composed in Greek, clearly drew on his native Jewish and Hebraic thought-forms when he wrote. In fact, some phrases in the New Testament manuscripts make no sense unless one reaches through the Greek to the underlying Hebrew expressions. Here is an example, only one of many. Yeshua says in the Sermon on the Mount, literally, “If your eye be evil, your whole body will be dark.” What is an evil eye ? Someone not knowing the Jewish background might suppose Yeshua was talking about casting spells. However, in Hebrew, having an ‘ayin ra’ah, an “evil eye,” means being stingy; while having an ‘ayin tovah, a “good eye,” means being generous. Yeshua is simply urging generosity against stinginess. And this understanding fits with the surrounding verses: “Where your wealth is, there your heart will be also…You can’t be a slave to both God and money !”

Greek text Used for the B’rit Hadashah

There are more than five thousand ancient manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament, more than for other document from antiquity. Due to scribal errors and other factors, they do not agree with each other at every point. Textual criticism, which sets out to determine the correct reading of a text from disagreeing and imperfect sources, is far beyond the competence of most Bible translators, including me. Fortunately, there exist critical editions of the Greek text of the New Testament, wherein specialists have investigated, compares, and judged the accuracy of the differing textual readings found in the manuscripts. My translation of the B’rit Hadashah is based primarily on the United Bible Societies’ The Greek New Testament, but I also consulted a number of English and Hebrew versions and commentaries.

------------------------------------------

God, I hope that was sufficient.

*goes to soak her carpal-tunnel seized hand in ice water*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



You seem to be challenging my ability to choose a good translation, and had asked about the origin of Mr. Stern's translated text.



no. what i was challenging was your assertion

"The reason I use this version is that it is probably as close to accurate as you're going to get, as far as translations are concerned."

i wanted you realise that very little in the field of bible translations is as clear cut as you seem to imagine.

my question and interest in this new translation were genuine.

quote:So, I have painstakingly typed some of his Introduction, word for word, so you can read it for yourself.

yes and i'm having a guilt trip about it.



more in a minute - i need coffee

quote:Please tell me what you think about the validity of this translation after reading it.

no. i'm nowhere near competent enough or learned enough to pass judgement on its validity.i would not class myself as either a hebrew or koine scholar.(i'd not be able to get laid in either!)

all i can do is give you my impressions from what you typed up.

as far as i can tell he seems an extremly learned hebrew scholar. his translation of the OT is probably superb and more than accurate enough for your purposes. unfortunately he doesn't mention any competence in sumerian/hittite/accardian etc so there might be passages that are not quite as reliable but thats only a supposition on my part.

his remarks on the hebrew base of even the koine NT texts is a vitally important and oft overlooked point.

however i would be very wary of relying to much on his NT translation then this passage is very very worrying

quote:Textual criticism, which sets out to determine the correct reading of a text from disagreeing and imperfect sources, is far beyond the competence of most Bible translators, including me.

i'll go out on a limb here and make the rash statement that no accurate translation of the NT is possible without either deep personal expertise in text.crit. or direct access to a

top flight text.crit scholar.

Textual criticism is useless for a volume whose versions vary so greatly. The only sensible conclusion a textual critic could come to would be to provide endless footnotes, or rule by majority as to how to translate certain parts, which is basically what bible translators do in the first place...

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Textual criticism is useless for a volume whose versions vary so greatly. The only sensible conclusion a textual critic could come to would be to provide endless footnotes, or rule by majority as to how to translate certain parts, which is basically what bible translators do in the first place...



uhm no. you seem confused as to what a textual critic does.

If by textual criticism, you mean "higher criticism" or "biblical criticism," then I would say I have my definition right. A textual critic is someone who sifts through biblical manuscripts attempting to discern the actual fact of what is being described in light of its historical, or archaeological contexts, rather than just simply adopting the orthodox view of the text even if it conflicts with evidence from the aforementioned fields. You implied that being a textual critic is almost a pre-requisite for translating the bible. I say it isn't, because for a volume like John, with so many variant manuscripts, deciding upon a proper translation using textual criticism would not help much, as there is no way to know based upon archaeological or historical contexts which individual words or which phraseology conflict or match with our outside knowledge of the times and the events described in particular (i.e. next to nothing). We cannot verify, or refute, the details of individual gospels based solely on archaeological or historical evidence. After all, they do describe miracles and contain first person accounts which we can neither confirm nor deny. We can tackle, using historical evidence, larger assertions, like the conflicting birth stories and whether there were censuses being conducted in the area at the time, but how would that change the way we translate the work?

Would a textual critic simply redact those parts of the text he views to be historically impossible? In order to honestly settle on a translation for the work, he would still have to employ the skills of an average translator, working from divergent manuscripts, and most likely rule by majority and annotate to indicate the divergence of accounts. For the passage being debated in this topic, for instance, the skills of a textual critic would have no practical value whatsoever. It is describing creation, and the spiritual order of the God proposed in the text. Can this possibly be commented on from the standpoint of a textual critic? This may be one of the reasons which the author of the Jewish Bible alluded to his having no skills as a textual critic. Another possible reason is that the practical tone of the field of textual criticism has become, at least from the popular perspective, to simply disprove the validity of religious works. The accusation is that practicioners of textual criticism generally operate under the assumption that the biblical account cannot possibly be valid, and work using the contextual information from the fields of history and archaeology to justify that assertion.

[This message has been edited by Sephiroth (edited 07-03-2005).]

I'd also like to take this time to apologise publically to Digital_Savior. I wronged her in speech a short time ago and I wish to ask for her forgiveness in the interests of continued friendship. I am honestly ashamed.

seph, i really want to read what you wrote but i have to go do some plumbing first (the sink stinks http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif))

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

If by textual criticism, you mean "higher criticism" or "biblical criticism," then I would say I have my definition right.

yes the terms have become almost interchangeable, although strictly speaking there are lines of demarcation.

quote: A textual critic is someone who sifts through biblical manuscripts attempting to discern the actual fact of what is being described in light of its historical, or archaeological contexts, rather than just simply adopting the orthodox view of the text even if it conflicts with evidence from the aforementioned fields.

NO! although i now see where your confusion arises.



quote:You implied that being a textual critic is almost a pre-requisite for translating the bible. I say it isn't, because for a volume like John

i refer you to robinson's seminal work on John and of course Dodd. Their works have increased both our understanding of John and the accuracy of its translation beyond measure. Robinson, as you no doubt know,argues convincingly for the piority of John -even ascribng parts of it to eye witness accounts.

quote: with so many variant manuscripts, deciding upon a proper translation

proper no, accurate yes.

coffee time,brb



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-03-2005).]

quote:After all, they do describe miracles and contain first person accounts which we can neither confirm nor deny. We can tackle, using historical evidence, larger assertions, like the conflicting birth stories and whether there were censuses being conducted in the area at the time, but how would that change the way we translate the work?

Would a textual critic simply redact those parts of the text he views to be historically impossible? In order to honestly settle on a translation for the work, he would still have to employ the skills of an average translator, working from divergent manuscripts, and most likely rule by majority and annotate to indicate the divergence of accounts. For the passage being debated in this topic, for instance, the skills of a textual critic would have no practical value whatsoever. It is describing creation, and the spiritual order of the God proposed in the text. Can this possibly be commented on from the standpoint of a textual critic? This may be one of the reasons which the author of the Jewish Bible alluded to his having no skills as a textual critic. Another possible reason is that the practical tone of the field of textual criticism has become, at least from the popular perspective, to simply disprove the validity of religious works. The accusation is that practicioners of textual criticism generally operate under the assumption that the biblical account cannot possibly be valid, and work using the contextual information from the fields of history and archaeology to justify that assertion.

simply put the debate about the necessity of translators requiring textual criticism skills ended in 1970 with the publication of the NEB translation (which btw Dodd oversaw).

As your basic premise as to what a textual critic does is erroneous ,its not suprising you fail to see the relevance of their work to translating.

quote: For the passage being debated in this topic, for instance, the skills of a textual critic would have no practical value whatsoever.

as i said before, according to greek scholars (translators) there are at least 4 or 5 valid ways of translating the passage.

the textual critic can give valuable insights into which translation possibilty is the nearest to the original authors intended meaning.

again expressed simply: the textual critic is not interesteded in the theological arguement about the divinity of christ but rather what the writer of the passage originally said or what he meant.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

the textual critic can give valuable insights into which translation possibilty is the nearest to the original authors intended meaning.

again expressed simply: the textual critic is not interesteded in the theological arguement about the divinity of christ but rather what the writer of the passage originally said or what he meant.

Jack, i was just giving some thought to this compared to what you said in "test your bible knowledge #1" (the satan could have been human--possibly the high priest).

The reason i posted in this thread is twofold. The first, is for my understanding of 'textual critic'... basically, is this kinda what you mean that they do (in my next part) ?

In those passages, is there an indication of singularity or plurality?

If it indicates one person, then i would doubt that it was the high priest "testing" a claim of messiahship, since by the Law, 2 or more witnesses would be needed to testify. (I realize that this is weak, since people do not always follow the rules/tradition/law or bend them to for a desired purpose i.e. Pope/annulment/divorce changes and venerating/canonizing saints)

If the text indicates more than one, then i think your case is strengthened.

quote:i would doubt that it was the high priest "testing" a claim of messiahship, since by the Law, 2 or more witnesses would be needed to testify.

an extremely interesting and valid point. i know we have some talmud scholars here, i hope one of them could shed some light on this.

as far as i am aware the text refers only to a singular 'tester'.

this btw doesn't really fall under tetxual critic but more the historicial critical method. however as i said to seph..the lines are blurred.

the textual critic would be interested in the origin of the text, wether it was a later redation, etc etc

God requires me to forgive, Seph.

I have already done it - but that is between me and God.

Thanks, for whatever that is worth.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Forgiveness and revenge must have the same meaning for God to make sense.

QUOTE Originally posted by jackketch:

. i know we have some talmud scholars here, i hope one of them could shed some light on this.[b]

me too, i am alway interested as to learning more about the roots and paths of my Faith.

[b]this btw doesn't really fall under tetxual critic but more the historicial critical method. however as i said to seph..the lines are blurred.

the textual critic would be interested in the origin of the text, wether it was a later redation, etc etc

Thanks for the clarification.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Forgiveness and revenge must have the same meaning for God to make sense.

How is revenge a factor in this conversation ?