Hold up Henry; what's a libertarian?

[Belinda]

Actually, he said a ton about that. Here's just one bit:

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

You may trust the Doctrine of Atonement...

I do. But that's totally irrelevant. It wouldn't change one thing if I didn't.

You said Paul didn't say anything about that. I showed you he did. You may not like that it's so, but that's also irrelevant to the question. It is what it is.

Your interpretation of the Doctrine of Atonement reads like superstition as in Jesus Christ made a bargain with God. A quid pro quo with God? Grow up! The ancients did that when they sacrificed their best to the gods.

No wonder people are quitting Christianity when pastors are still preaching human sacrifice!

A human life is a series of events bound together by memories and the sort of personal identifications used by the police. There is no essence that persists from conception to the grave. Some man may be characterised by a persisting personality and a persisting belief system but that persistence is caused by the inertia of habits and customs.

No, what a man does is what he is. By his fruits you know him.

[Belinda]

Gaffo, and Henry Quirk, I 'd better stop writing my opinions about American politics as obviously I don't know nearly enough and my opinions are based only upon my impression that the USA for all its faults is a nicer place to live in than China or other so-called republics.

[Immanuel Can]

Your interpretation of the Doctrine of Atonement...

Red herring.

I did not give any interpretation. I gave you only Biblical text.

It is what it is. You can like it or not, but you can't duck it.

[Skepdick]

I did not give any interpretation. I gave you only Biblical text.

It's not in Hebrew or in Ancient Greek...

Seems interpreted to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Seems interpreted to me.

Not by me.

Meanwhile, the NASB is very probably the most literal English Bible translation available. So it is what it is, unless we want to start arguing the Greek...which I'm not at all loath to do, but would regrettably inhibit most people from this discussion.

[Skepdick]

Not by me.

I didn't say it was by you. I am just saying that it was interpreted.

No need to be defensive - nobody is accusing you of anything.

Meanwhile, the NASB is very probably the most literal English Bible translation available. So it is what it is, unless we want to start arguing the Greek...which I'm not at all loath to do, but would regrettably inhibit most people from this discussion.

Sure, I don't speak Greek or Hebrew. So I guess we'll just have to acknowledge that some things may have been lost in translation.

[Immanuel Can]

I guess we'll just have to acknowledge that some things may have been lost in translation.

I don't think so.

Today, there are superb study aids available, to show the reasons for interpretation of every line in the Greek. I can point you to a host. If you have patience for it, we can take any phrase that you find troubling and parse it both literally, and by means of the world's great experts on Greek translation.

But I know that what you'll find is this: if any document has been well translated in the entire history of the world, this one is it. No book has been more carefully examined by the world's great experts, and none has been so often re-translated. The tiny differences between the best translators, or produced by the vagaries of English (say, between the antique usages and the modern) are so minor as not to be worthy of note.

Nothing much, then, need be "lost", and certainly nothing that changes the meaning of a passage like the one I quoted.

[Skepdick]

I guess we'll just have to acknowledge that some things may have been lost in translation.

I don't think so.

Today, there are superb study aids available, to show the reasons for interpretation of every line in the Greek. I can point you to a host. If you have patience for it, we can take any phrase that you find troubling and parse it both literally, and by means of the world's great experts on Greek translation.

Since I don't actually speak Greek, there is no way any such exercise could be profitable.

There is no way for me to identify "any troubling phrase" because a "troubling phrase" is a phrase which is incorrectly translated...

I wouldn't know whether a phrase has been incorrectly translated since I don't actually speak Greek.

No way off this hamster wheel...

But I know that what you'll find is this: if any document has been well translated in the entire history of the world, this one is it.

How do you know?

No book has been more carefully examined by the world's great experts, and none has been so often re-translated.

Ohhh, so it's not even a 2nd hand interpretation?

Nothing much, then, need be "lost", and certainly nothing that changes the meaning of a passage like the one I quoted.

Only a person ignorant of hermeneutics could say that.

[Immanuel Can]

I guess we'll just have to acknowledge that some things may have been lost in translation.

I don't think so.

Today, there are superb study aids available, to show the reasons for interpretation of every line in the Greek. I can point you to a host. If you have patience for it, we can take any phrase that you find troubling and parse it both literally, and by means of the world's great experts on Greek translation.

Since I don't actually speak Greek, there is no way any such exercise could be profitable.

You'll be astonished how good the aids are.

But I know that what you'll find is this: if any document has been well translated in the entire history of the world, this one is it.

How do you know?

I retranslate it myself, quite frequently. However, I find that what nuances I discover as a result are often very, very fine indeed.

Nothing much, then, need be "lost", and certainly nothing that changes the meaning of a passage like the one I quoted.

Only a person ignorant of hermeneutics could say that.

On the contrary...only someone who DID know hermeneutics could say it.

The task is not at all so difficult as you imagine. What's difficult is for you to controvert the passage I quoted to Belinda. That, you will find an uphill struggle. What you'll find is that it's effectively the same in English and Greek.

But I understand your confusion if you've never done translation work yourself. You would probably find it a daunting thought even to try, so I don't blame you for not trying.

But it's not.

[Skepdick]

You'll be astonished how good the aids are.

I would be astonished if I was able to determine their quality.

Since I have no baseline to compare against... Not speaking Greek and all.

What you'll find is that it's effectively the same in English and Greek.

Again... I imagine I would have to learn Greek in order to determine that.

But I understand your confusion if you've never done translation work yourself. You would probably find it a daunting thought even to try, so I don't blame you for not trying.

What's daunting is having no mechanism to verify the correctness of my translation.

With the original author being dead and all.

[Immanuel Can]

You'll be astonished how good the aids are.

I would be astonished if I was able to determine their quality.

Well, really, all you would have to do is to take for granted that when the vast majority of highly-respected translators -- watched and critically reviewed by their peers, over a period of thousands of years, and working independently from other translators -- rendered a translation, they were not actually conspiring to trap you in a lie, or all deceived by a common deception.

However, since these translators came from vastly different backgrounds, from different cultures, and lived in different time periods, you would find the problem of how to explain their agreements far more difficult than believing that they were simply telling you the truth.

However, you can pick your strategy on that.

P.S. -- First OT Bible translation to Greek, 3rd Century B.C. First NT translation of parts, 2nd Century A.D. First partial translations into English, 7th Century A.D....what are the chances that all these people were secretly conspiring with Johannes Gutenberg and John Wycliffe, and with Immanuel Can in the 21st Century to produce a biased translation?

[henry quirk]

Gaffo, and Henry Quirk, I 'd better stop writing my opinions about American politics as obviously I don't know nearly enough and my opinions are based only upon my impression that the USA for all its faults is a nicer place to live in than China or other so-called republics.

It is:

[Skepdick]

Well, really, all you would have to do is to take for granted that when the vast majority of highly-respected translators -- watched and critically reviewed by their peers, over a period of thousands of years, and working independently from other translators -- rendered a translation, they were not actually conspiring to trap you in a lie, or all deceived by a common deception.

And I perfectly accept that. I don't doubt their intentions. I doubt their competence.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts -- Richard Feynman

However, since these translators came from vastly different backgrounds, from different cultures, and lived in different time periods, you would find the problem of how to explain their agreements far more difficult than believing that they were simply telling you the truth.

They couldn't be telling me anything other than their best understanding of "The Truth".

I am pretty sure they did a stellar job - perhaps as good a job as humanly possible. But I'll always wonder if your actual God could've done it better?

I wonder why he didn't?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, really, all you would have to do is to take for granted that when the vast majority of highly-respected translators -- watched and critically reviewed by their peers, over a period of thousands of years, and working independently from other translators -- rendered a translation, they were not actually conspiring to trap you in a lie, or all deceived by a common deception.

I doubt their competence.

On the basis of what data?

[Skepdick]

Well, really, all you would have to do is to take for granted that when the vast majority of highly-respected translators -- watched and critically reviewed by their peers, over a period of thousands of years, and working independently from other translators -- rendered a translation, they were not actually conspiring to trap you in a lie, or all deceived by a common deception.

I doubt their competence.

On the basis of what data?

On the basis of their non-omnipotence, non-omniscience and non-omnipresence.

On the basis of their humanity.