Monday, February 10, 2020

Augustine’s Wisdom



Jordan Peterson put his finger on the pulse of what is now referred to as the meaning crisis.  Even as he has disappeared from the scene (update here), the conversation is continuing without him.  The person I listen to the most on this topic is Paul VanderKlay, a Christian Reformed pastor at a church in Sacramento.  (BTW, his videos from his Sunday School class might be the best thing he puts out; these are found on another channel.)

VanderKlay recently had a conversation with John Vervaeke.  Vervaeke is a professor at the University of Toronto.  He recently completed a fifty-part series on the meaning crisis, diving into the history of philosophy and religion, and moving through the issues of our present time and the necessary (in his view) path forward.

In the conversation with VanderKlay, Vervaeke offered the following four factors necessary for one to find meaning in life.  One need not have all four in exact proportion, there can be much more of one and much less of another.

1)      A sense of connectedness to what is real, what is significant, what is bigger than you
2)      A sense of mattering to others and to reality
3)      A sense of being cared for by others, relationships that have a developmental import for you
4)      A sense of purpose, that there is some overarching goal that all of your other goals are subservient to

Christianity certainly offers all four of these.  But Vervaeke suggests that the answer won’t be found in Christianity – or any other thing we call a religion.  He does not suggest that individuals cannot find these factors through religion – he knows many that do.  He does suggest that it no longer works for the broader society.  Therefore, he is after finding a religion that is not a religion.

Why does it no longer work for the broader society?  Per Vervaeke, there is much in the Bible that just doesn’t work given what we have learned from science – or at least doesn’t work in the way that many Christians say it works.  Biblical cosmology and Biblical biology – if taken at face value and in the plain meaning of the words – really doesn’t fly, certainly not based on current science. 

Vervaeke’s religion that is not a religion must not fall into such a trap – it must capture the four factors and the best of modern science all together.

What does this have to do with Augustine?  There are a few big hang-ups that moderns have with the Bible as science.  Obviously, they don’t like Jesus rising from the dead – but this one is kind of non-negotiable, else there is no Christianity.

They also don’t like the Biblical creation story as science.  Now, before I go any further…my intent is not to start a debate on the matter – for me, exactly how and when the universe came to be is not terribly important to my faith, other than my belief that God created it.  I have addressed this general topic of Biblical interpretation and meaning once before; consider this post an extension or continuation of the discussion.

The story begins with a monk:

John Cassian (c. AD 360 – c. 435), also known as John the Ascetic and John Cassian the Roman, was a Christian monk and theologian celebrated in both the Western and Eastern churches for his mystical writings. Cassian is noted for his role in bringing the ideas and practices of Christian monasticism to the early medieval West.

How does he fit in?

Among early Christian writers, there were two main schools of thought about biblical interpretation.  Those who studied the Bible in Egypt tended to favour more symbolic interpretations. Those who studied in what is now Turkey, however, preferred more literal, historical readings.

A monk called John Cassian (360–435 AD), took the discussion to the next level by bringing both kinds of interpretation together. He identified four ways in which the Bible could be understood: the literal, the symbolic, the ethical and the mystical. By the Middle Ages, these four methods of interpretation (or ‘senses’) had become fairly standard among Christians.

Which brings me to Augustine and The Literal Meaning of Genesis.  First, for some clarification: what is meant here by the word “literal”?

For Augustine, to interpret something “literally” means to interpret “in the sense intended by the author.”

In early Church history, there were varied interpretations of the earliest passages in Genesis.  Basil took the days of creation to be just that: 24-hour days, just as we know these.  Origen went for the allegorical interpretation – symbolic representations.

So, what did Augustine see regarding Genesis?  From his book:

In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received.


C. S. Lewis held a similar view in Mere Christianity.  Christians disagree about so many theological topics, and even disagree about the relative importance of what they should disagree about.  But is any of this really so terribly important to the faith?  Lewis focusses in on the key necessity:

The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start.

That word “somehow” is also the source of many of the disagreements.  Beyond this, Lewis adds:

There are three things that spread the Christ-life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names – Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper.

The manners by which these are practiced are almost infinitely variable, but they are all practiced.

The farther we move past these core points, the closer we are moving toward Augustine’s matters that are obscure and far beyond our reason.  And what does Augustine suggest about this?

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics… (emphasis added)

I will say it more politely: why would we not incorporate reason and experience into our understanding?  As reason and faith both come from God, why would we be afraid of either?  Why would we run away from one being a purifier for the other?

Which leads Augustine to address one of the main criticisms of Christianity – and one raised by Vervaeke:

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

Remember: Augustine is writing this in a book in which he is analyzing the opening passages of Genesis.

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”  (1 Tm 1, 7) (emphasis added)

It is worth expanding this passage from 1 Timothy:

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

Conclusion

“God said it.  I believe it.  That settles it.”  Many Christians are so completely sure about their interpretation, to the detriment of the faith as Augustine notes.  God said it, but was he speaking literally, symbolically, ethically, or mystically?  What did He mean by it?  This was the point of my earlier post on this topic.

Christians have been debating, arguing, even warring over many theological doctrines for two-thousand years.  I guess that might be of value if such action moved Christians closer to unity, but it has done just the opposite.  As Augustine and Vervaeke note, it also drives non-Christians and former Christians away from the faith entirely.  (And some will want to argue about if there is even such a thing as a former Christian…sigh…)

There is no part of the Bible where internalizing this point might be more necessary than in the opening chapters of Genesis.  A little humility might go a long way toward witnessing to those who, like Vervaeke, find some of the “history” and “science” hard to swallow.

Augustine was not afraid of recognizing this reality of the earth, nature, and the heavens.  He did not fear allowing this knowledge to influence how to interpret Scripture.

Epilogue

In a conversation that Vervaeke was having with another, they were exploring what might be aspects or features or necessities of this religion that is not a religion.  The way the video started, it must have been a continuation of an earlier conversation, but I could not find the previous conversation.

They were taking about a basic income guarantee, and it seemed quite clear – although I may have misunderstood – that they viewed such a thing as a necessity for a society that was to live within this religion that is not a religion.

I sure hope that I misunderstood, because this is nonsensical.  Do you want to implement perhaps the most certain way to remove meaning from a man’s life?  Take away all responsibility to provide for himself and his family.  Go back and look at the four factors proposed by Vervaeke, found at the top of this post.  A basic income guarantee pretty much eliminates all four from one’s life.

I really have to have misunderstood, but it sure sounded like this is what they were discussing.

30 comments:

  1. Mostly applied to the epilogue, but pertinent to the body as well:

    “They believed, not because they knew, but that they might come to know. For we believe in order that we may know, we do not know in order that we may believe.” - Augustine

    Revelation. Christianity is a Revealed religion (but that does not mean it is not reasonable). I desperately seek to understand the paradox, to will myself to love the Truth revealed (not “our” truth, "my" truth).

    “The Only Way to Truth is By Love”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq1etjvIv4k

    A shorter video on “Faith and Reason”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOqu2k5uIg&t=277s

    John 6:25-59 Jesus the Bread of Life (or just read the Lord’s Prayer)

    If that doesn’t reveal “well enough,” imagine Maslow’s hierarchy of needs inverted (minus the self-actualization and esteem) or Dostoyevsky’s Grand inquisitor. The conversation mentioned in the epilogue is just another iteration of those - more men making little “g” gods (for themselves and other to follow). Maybe they haven’t gotten the message from Nietzsche that little “g” god is dead, but GOD never left the scene. You might want to skidaddle.

    To shine light on this (also the book “Negative Certainties” - that expands on this talk):

    “The Gift and the Economy”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGRE-Oa8gNs&t=3s

    It is a temptation of our will (pride) to “know for certain” what’s best not just for us, but so often others.

    "Everything is possible for him who believes" . . .
    “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” Mark 9:23, 24

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Obviously, they don’t like Jesus rising from the dead – but this one is kind of non-negotiable, else there is no Christianity."

    I would agree. Progressive Christianity would disagree. They would say you can be a Christian and believe that what was meant by Christ's Resurrection was only that "death did not have the last word in the Jesus story because his followers were raised up to be his new body." It's this sort of misguided conjecturing that I find repugnant among Progressive Christians.

    "exactly how and when the universe came to be is not terribly important to my faith, other than my belief that God created it."

    Amen!

    "A little humility might go a long way toward witnessing to those who, like Vervaeke, find some of the “history” and “science” hard to swallow."

    No! Blessed are the hard headed, who know everything, for they will inherit the earth. Oh wait, how did that one go again? Lol Yes, a little humility would go a long way I think.

    "A basic income guarantee pretty much eliminates all four from one’s life."

    But with all that newly acquired free time, people will have more time to develop their 'non-faith' (or whatever Vervaeke is calling belief in his non-religion). There is always a 'reason' to support bad ideas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ATL, Acts 2 is relevant for so many points. Regarding your first comment, Peter preached the resurrection and 3000 were saved - he didn't preach any mamby-pamby nonsense about Peter being the new Christ.

      More were saved by this preaching than by all of Jesus's miracles. This is powerful. Only the gift of Holy Spirit can explain this...in Peter, who just shortly before cowered when asked if he followed Jesus.

      It is also worth noting: he preached the resurrection. He didn't test for the right answers on creation, predestination, free will, infant baptism, the precise meaning and practice of communion, etc. Yet they were saved - 3000.

      Delete
    2. Totally. Preach Christ and Him crucified (and resurrected). Even Paul years later stated a simple gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Christ death to pay for sin, 3 days dead, resurrection, and appearances to hundreds of people publicly. That's it.

      The other things flesh out the how, why, when, who.

      Delete
    3. I am following a series on Aquinas 101. They spoke of the books of the New Testament - in what order were they written, etc. Apparently some of Paul's letters may have been written before some of the Gospels, and the letters are not necessarily presented in chronological order.

      All this is preamble to what was said about Philippians. This may be one of the earliest New Testament writings, and in chapter 2 Paul seems to be reciting a song, beginning in verse 6 through 11. So, one of the first songs written of Jesus.

      Right in the middle is the line "even death on a cross!" It doesn't fit the structure of the poem - as if said as a point of emphasis in the song.

      Anyway, a curious tidbit germane to this conversation, I think.

      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2&version=NIV

      Delete
  3. I find much of what post-modern "Science" says is unreasonable and untrue. It is more a neo-pagan religion than science. Environmentalism. Climate Change Alarmism. Communism. Evolution. Uniformitarianism.

    All claim to be science. But they all follow ideas that religious and not scientific. Excuse me if as a Bible believer I reject them all. I will look unreasonable and foolish to people who believe in the false post-modern science religion. But I have looked at the science itself and it is lacking and it contradicts what the Bible says. I have no reason to go along with it to appear wise to neo-pagans.

    Augustine had it right:

    For Augustine, to interpret something “literally” means to interpret “in the sense intended by the author.”

    The cool part is that you can usually understand the intent of the author through the study of the Scripture itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RMB, you are right to point out that science as much of it is practiced today is unscientific and requires faith. Not even that it contradicts the Bible - it contradicts science!

      Delete
  4. Augustine's views on the Creation week are not as clear as some think:

    https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/augustine-on-the-days-of-creation/

    https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/books/augustines-commentaries-on-genesis-one-and-modern-theology/

    As Martin Luther said, "The Days of Creation were ordinary days in length. We must understand that these days were actual days, contrary to the opinion of the holy fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from authority of Scripture for their sake."

    The length of the days during the Creation week and the age of the earth are not a salvation issue, but they *are* an authority of Scripture issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good thing I didn't write anything advocating Augustine's specific views!

      :-)

      I believe Augustine wrote that if science later disproves his specific views on creation, this shouldn't discredit his more important view - which I expanded on in this piece. If he didn't write this, then I guess I said it for him.

      Martin Luther said many things - some of remaining value, some not, most for which I am unqualified to respond.

      As to authority of Scripture, I can only take from your comment that you read the Scripture through just one lens - I have no problem with this; maybe you are right. Other men, more learned than I am, disagreed; maybe they were wrong.

      This last paragraph I mean most sincerely; I hope it is not read otherwise.

      Delete
    2. I wanted to add a point to Mr Spock. That is doctrinal purity on creation isn't needed for salvation.

      However, one aspect does tie into the gospel. The existence of Adam and Eve and their rebellion against God. Without Adam sinning their is no sin nature for proceeding generations to inherit. Romans 5 says through Adam all sinned. In that sense Jesus is the 2nd Adam. Without a 1st Adam doing what he did in Genesis 3, none of it makes sense.

      Delete
    3. "As to authority of Scripture, I can only take from your comment that you read the Scripture through just one lens"

      Can you elaborate on this? I don't know what you mean - what is that lens?

      Delete
    4. Gary, I am referring to something in my post above, as follows:

      "He identified four ways in which the Bible could be understood: the literal, the symbolic, the ethical and the mystical. By the Middle Ages, these four methods of interpretation (or ‘senses’) had become fairly standard among Christians."

      So it strikes me that he is reading only through a "literal" lens; not literal as Augustine meant it, but as we commonly understand the term today.

      If I am misunderstanding Mr Spock, I hope he will clarify.

      Delete
    5. RMB: "For Augustine, to interpret something “literally” means to interpret “in the sense intended by the author. The cool part is that you can usually understand the intent of the author through the study of the Scripture itself."

      I agree with that. I'd like to say a few things about taking the Bible "literally." No one takes the entire Bible literally. No one. (And I mean that literally. :-))

      I'm not saying this about anyone here, but it is quite common for those that criticize the Bible to accuse someone of taking it literally and then to give an example that obviously can't be taken literally (John 10:9, "I am the door," Psalm 91:4, "He shall cover you with His feathers, And under His wings you shall take refuge," e.g.), thinking they've won the argument. That way they dismiss the Bible because it wasn't meant to be taken literally and they spiritualize it or claim it's all symbolic and we can't know what it means. Besides, it was written by a bunch of dumb sheep herders, anyway.

      There are many types of literature in the Bible - historical narrative, the Law, Psalms, prophecy, letters, apocalyptic, wisdom, poetry, etc. And words have meaning in context. It's usually quite easy to determine the type of literature you are reading in the Bible and what it means. And you should not let a difficult passage excuse you from understanding the easy ones. Genesis is written in historical narrative and is thus to be understood as history. It's that simple. So, as I read the first chapters of Genesis, the days of creation were ordinary 24 hour days, and the earth was created about 6,000 years ago. No scientist was there and many of them use methods with faulty assumptions for calculating the age of the earth to avoid having to answer to their Creator.

      Going back to Martin Luther, he had the opposite problem - there were people in his day who thought God took only one day to create everything. He had to convince them that it took longer than a day.

      I love this quote from him: "When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are."

      That's what it boils down to - are you going to believe fallible men that weren't there, or are you going to believe God's word? Jesus, Paul and Peter all took Genesis as history. I think we should, too.

      Delete
    6. Mister Spock, I am with you and have a very similar perspective on the Bible. I am right on track with what you are saying about interpreting Bible within literary genre. That is very important.

      One thing I would like to expand on is the literary genre of Genesis. I agree it is historical narrative with one small caveat. I had one pastor who was a Rhodes scholar and described Genesis 1, maybe 2 also, as having a genre in between narrative and poetry. It isn't quite poetry but has some of the same formal structure that is like poetry and unique to any other part of the Bible. Yet, it is still an historical account. So I lean your way of thinking about it, but I know there is a bit of gray in there too. Not that that changes much about how you interpret the passage.

      Delete
    7. Mr. Spock,

      "give an example that obviously can't be taken literally (John 10:9, "I am the door," Psalm 91:4, "He shall cover you with His feathers, And under His wings you shall take refuge,"" - Spock

      This was funny! And well said. Imagine if a sect of Christians really did believe that St. John was a door with hinges and a knob.

      To your argument about creation, I'm not opposed to it (science has often been shown to be flawed, corrupt, or otherwise wrong), but I'm just not hinging my belief on it. And though I believe the Bible is the true story of God, and the New Testament the historical narrative of Jesus Christ, His only Son, I can't get over the fact that it was all written by, and thus filtered through, the flawed and frail hands of men, which though certainly guided by the Holy Spirit, surely must have added or subtracted or otherwise got the message incorrect in places.

      In other words, I'm open to the Bible being not 100% correct, but it's the best we got. All I can do is live my life (to the best of my ability) according to the teachings of Jesus. The rest is in God's very capable hands.

      But I love the discussion! Thanks for sharing.

      Delete
    8. "I can't get over the fact that it was all written by, and thus filtered through, the flawed and frail hands of men, which though certainly guided by the Holy Spirit, surely must have added or subtracted or otherwise got the message incorrect in places."

      And translated and re-translated hundreds of times...and trying to capture God in words understandable to humans...to humans who lived in a different cultural context than I do today...etc.

      Some things that repeatedly go through my head during such conversations - and I do appreciate the conversation:

      1) I always come back to this verse (personalized): For by Grace am I saved through faith, and that not of myself - it is the gift of God. How, exactly that works...a mystery to me.

      2) The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

      3) It would seem that if I am saved, I would have such fruit and would have some obligation to not hide my light under a bushel :-) This I must do, whether or not I understand the mystery of 1) above.

      4) Just like step 1) above, I will leave the rest in God's hands. Not really noble of me, since I really don't have much choice in the matter. I do have a choice about 3); I pray that I do my part.

      Delete
    9. I will add: there are many not saved that also demonstrate some of the fruit. However, those who demonstrate none of the fruit - well, I believe they don't have the Spirit.

      Which comes back to me doing my part: demonstrate the fruit! It doesn't save me; but by not demonstrating the fruit, it is clear that I am not.

      Delete
    10. We have 1000s of Greek manuscripts. Translation doesn't obscur anything because we have the original language. Hebrew for OT too. I have read scholars saying we know 98-99% of the words of the Bible with certainty and for the remaining 1-2% we know what the options are. None of the variability changes Christian doctrine. It affects our understanding of some issues of secondary or tertiary importance, but again we have the options and can analyze those. That means even where we don't have certainty we have a probabilistic understanding.

      Translation itself is the issue. Some parts are super simple. Some parts are virtually impossible to know with exact specificity. Either way reading the Bible within its textual, grammatical, historical context. The grammar part can be understand by studying Greek itself. English grammar of English translations is adequate as well. Textual just means comparing Scripture with Scripture. We formulate our beliefs by taking what the Bible as a whole says on an issue, not cherry picking a verse. Historical includes cultural. We can study history. We can study culture. We won't ever experience those things first hand so we are limited in how much we can know. However, we aren't dealing with a black magical box either.

      1) How exactly? A mystery. Have you ever received a gift in your life though? Of course you have. So apply what you know about other gifts you have received with faith.

      2) We can understand the words used. But how those fruit are made evident in your life? Probably the greatest mystery to me.

      3) Yes. It's called sanctification and there is no manual for how that should go. It is a personal, unique journey as far as I can tell. All I can say is it should happen

      4) All I can say is pray about that too. Whatever you mean by "the rest".

      Delete
    11. RMB, there are things in your reply which are confusing to me or otherwise seem to confirm my point (which is part of my confusion, I am sure), but I think I have said enough on this topic.

      Delete
    12. I made a mistake. The first word of the second paragraph should have read "interpretation" not translation. My point was interpretation is the challenge not translation.

      Anywhere else I agreed with you, I was trying to highlight that in my response.

      Delete
    13. Sorry I couldn't get back to this until now - I hope people are still reading this thread.

      ATL: "I believe the Bible is the true story of God...but...I can't get over the fact that [men]...surely must have added or subtracted or otherwise got the message incorrect in places."

      I don't consider that a fact. I believe that the original autographs were exactly what God intended us to have and the message is incorrect nowhere. If it is incorrect, how do you determine where?

      There are tons of similar things all over the internet, along with books, sermons, seminars, etc., but I'd recommend you listen to this: How We Got the Bible https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=99522152134350

      It's a bit long, but I think it would convince most Christians (and even some non-Christians) that the Bible is not corrupt, mistranslated, etc. We have exactly what God wanted us to have and there is no doctrine in that Bible that is affected by barely a handful of disputed texts, transmission errors, etc.

      BM: "And translated and re-translated hundreds of times...and trying to capture God in words understandable to humans...to humans who lived in a different cultural context than I do today...etc."

      I think God is capable of communicating with His creation - that seems to be the intent of both the Living and written Word. What troubles me more, though, is your comment about the Bible being "translated and re-translated hundreds of times."

      Are you thinking in terms of the old telephone game where someone whispers something to the person next to them, and they do the same and several people down the line the original bears no resemblance to what the last person heard? Boy, I hope not, because that's not how the Bible was/is translated. The Bible has been translated only once. Each translation/version is a new, fresh translation where someone takes whatever manuscript(s) they are going to use, and they translate from those to whatever language. (We're usually talking about English, but it could be any language.) There is also the question about formal versus dynamic equivalence, but there is still only one translation - they don't take a translation of a translation of a translation, etc. That never happens. Again, I refer you to the James White audio above - it covers many related issues you might find interesting.

      Delete
    14. Mr. Spock, I guess I mean a couple of things by my comment:

      1) Bible Gateway offers something like 60 translations (if I recall my count correctly) just in English - no two exactly alike.

      2) Words are objective, definitions are subjective - all the more so when translated and even more so when two millennia have passed. Even an English dictionary from 150 years ago seems like a foreign language to many of us. When I look up a word in Greek, I need to use five or ten words to describe it - and even here, I cannot "feel" it the way one would have who lived in that culture at that time.

      3) Even after the best and brightest scholars have debated and discussed - and I mean to include those who have done so in good will - the entire text, there are still many passages for which there is either no consensus or little understanding.

      Delete
    15. Mister Spock, you're a James White fan I see. He is pretty good I agree.

      Delete
    16. BM, I think I understand you more now.

      1) Each translation is not translated from the other as Mister Spock said. They are all translated from the original language. So translations on translations isn't an issue because it doesn't happen.

      However, you point remains. Which English translation is correct? That is your problem. I acknowledge each translation is a bit different, so there is variability and therefore uncertainty. I guess I just don't think it is as big a problem as you. I feel confident in several of the more literal translations. Where they differ can help you understand more, like demonstrating the semantic range of words. It helps me get a sense of how broadly something can be interpreted. That further highlights the issue is one of interpretation than translation. There is a bit of that in any translation. If I have a serious question, I just look back at the Greek or Hebrew word to see which translation is closer to the original.

      2) Many Greek words are very straightforward. Some not so much. A good definition of any word is 5-10 words in a Dictionary. It is the limit of language, but we have to make our best effort and go forward with confidence and humility. I know you do this already.

      3) There isn't much debate on which words should be included in the Greek and Hebrew texts. Those are reasonably certain. With that foundation I think we can be confident in what we are reading, even in English translations. Many times, the translation is a word-for-word substitution of English for Greek, with a bit of word order shuffling. The disagreements are around how to interpret passages and what doctrines come up out of the text as a result. There is a lot of disagreement over that.

      Take a little sophronismos and the path clear itself up for the most part. Where it doesn't we shouldn't hold it as important and live and let live.

      Delete
    17. RMB

      “Where they differ can help you understand more…”

      I agree completely, and this is one of the wonderful results of dealing with both translation and differences in culture / time contexts (and, at times, differences in what we find in early texts). This really forces men of goodwill to come together and discuss. This can be wonderfully helpful in gaining understanding if done in good faith.

      Such examples are even visible here at this blog in the comments section: we are all comfortable with English, and come from a quite similar cultural background, yet the discussing and explaining of complex topics often takes many back-and-forth comments, and we often still can’t be certain that we understand each other. But in the dialogue, we at least come closer to understanding – even this thread is a good example.

      Yet, multiply this significantly when considering different languages and different cultural contexts.

      One other thought: we often speak of “the original Greek,” yet Jesus spoke in Aramaic….

      Delete
    18. Mr. Spock,

      "I believe that the original autographs were exactly what God intended us to have and the message is incorrect nowhere. If it is incorrect, how do you determine where?"

      First off, I don't believe I'm qualified to determine, especially for others, where the Bible is true and false, but I'm open to the possibility that it isn't 100% true. I'm also open to the possibility that it is 100% true, though given what we know about human weakness, I highly suspect that it is not.

      After all, the Holy Spirit was supposed to guide the Church as well, but that didn't stop us humans from becoming corrupt and prideful and splintering the faithful and allowing the rise of the secular State.

      I do think, however, if a similar parable, occurrence, or idea is expressed multiple times in different places, times, and by different authors in the Bible, (as it often is in the Gospels) that goes a long way in lending it veracity - as it does for any inquiry into the truth.

      I look for consistency. And if there is any disagreement between the Old and New Testaments, I side with the word of Jesus. I also look to my own conscience, which is not based on ideas I've invented, but has been handed down to me through tradition by my parents and community and guided (or at least nudged) by the Holy Spirit, I hope.

      One example I will give is how do we as Christians square Leviticus 20 with Matthew 5? Though I agree with the wrongness of the crimes in Levi 20, I disagree with the severity of the punishments (for most of them), and I disagree, because my conscience is directed at its foundation by Matt 5 and the other teachings of Christ.

      When Jesus said that if we look at a woman lustfully we have thus committed adultery in our heart, was He also implying that we should be killed or cast out of the community for this offense?

      Levi 20 strikes me as a local law originating from the minds of men of a certain people at a certain place and time in history, not a universal law from God that should be followed by all men in all locations forever. But I could be wrong.

      Thanks for the link. I will definitely check it out soon.

      Delete
    19. Numbers 31 is a pretty tough read as well.

      ATL, you have captured my thoughts well. How to square John 8 with pretty much anything from the Old Testament? Above my pay grade. I do know that Jesus came to fulfill the law, so I will take his lead on things such as this.

      Delete
    20. I found this video interesting - from the Sunday School class of Paul VanderKlay's church. The entire discussion is about John 5:4, which some Bibles include in the text, others in a footnote, etc.

      Why?

      He gives a very nice summary overview of translations, history, theological objectives, etc., on the topic. It will take an hour of your time, if you have an interest:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr6e-BhDoL8

      Delete
  5. ATL: "First off, I don't believe I'm qualified to determine, especially for others, where the Bible is true and false...if there is any disagreement between the Old and New Testaments, I side with the word of Jesus."

    If there is error in the Bible, then how do you know they are the words of Jesus?

    "I also look to my own conscience"

    I'd be wary of that.

    "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick..." Jeremiah 17:9

    "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation..." 2 Peter 1:20

    "One example I will give is how do we as Christians square Leviticus 20 with Matthew 5?"

    and

    BM: "How to square John 8 with pretty much anything from the Old Testament?"

    Gentiles (of which I am one) were never under the Law, and as a Christian you are certainly not under the Law since the Law has been abolished, anyway. Nothing to square. Christ took away the Law on the cross:

    "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." Colossians 2:13,14

    "When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." Hebrews 8:13

    "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." Romans 8:2

    Only three verses of many. The whole book of Galatians contrasts law and grace. We are now free under grace to live a life with the one commandment He left us:

    "This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us." 1 John 3:23

    (all quotes NASB)

    ReplyDelete