Subject:
|
Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:57:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
611 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> >
> > > A few other basic problems with the literality of the Bible:
> > >
> > > - Which translation?
> >
> > IMO, the issue of interpretation and translations and so forth is, at a
> > fundamental level, very simple: Reasonable, well-intentioned, well-informed,
> > open-minded inquiry is a root necessity of any fruitful scholarly, literary,
> > scientific, moral, religious, etc., etc. intellectual endeavor. At the very
> > warp and woof of the issue, at some point one has to make a seasoned value
> > judgment and to simply say: "I must trust my faculties in this matter, and
> > thusly I conclude...." We shall never find any authoritative work that is
> > beyond reasonable criticism. At some point we must apply serious, but humble,
> > judgment in a matter. I judge the Bible to be reliable and trustworthy for a
> > number of reasons. At the very heart of things, I do not *know* in the same
> > way that I know that I exist that the Bible is reliable; but, somewhere I
> > must reach a foundation upon which I state "Here am I and here I stand."
>
> Most believers of other faiths have a holy language in which the sacred text
> is written: Hebrew for Jews, Arabic for Muslims, Sanskrit for Hindus. Here
> I'm particularly interested in how translation affects this communication
> between the text and reader. James, when you talk about the "reliability" of
> the Bible, do you mean the original text or the English translation? Or do
> you see them as first-hand and second-hand human approximations of divine
> will, so both more or less subject to flaws?
In terms of reliability, I believe that the basic kerygma (the proclamation of
religious truth, if you will) of the Judeo-Christian faith has been passed down
through the centuries "in a reliable manner" such that we may have reasonable
trust in the integrity of the content. To put it in "spiritual" terms, I
believe that the writers of our canonical texts were inspired in some way by God
such that they recorded various events/instructions in a way that is basically
faithful to the message inspirationally communicated to them. The idea of
reliability of holy writ is a very complicated issue, and I'm afraid that I can
offer no simple explanation, either to myself or others, that wraps everything
up neat. Herein lies my problems with confidence in the literal meaning of text
on all fronts:
1) I doubt that a flawed person can "hear," understand, and record the voice of
the Divine with unflawed accuracy. A literalist may counter that it was
miraculous providence; my reply is that indeed it may have been, yet, the medium
(i.e. the person receiving the communication) is nonetheless inherently flawed,
and thus it is reasonable when viewing the content of scripture to make room for
error.
2) Even if the transmission was perfectly received, it has passed through a
medium of many centuries of translation; translation that is prone to cultural
deviances in understanding of nuance.
However, on a personal level, I am not terribly concerned with the accuracy of
the original Greek translations, or the King James translation (which i seldom
use). When i hold the Bible in my hands, I feel that it is a book which gives
me trustworthy insight into certain events and truths that are, IMO, of great
importance to humanity. When I read therein of certain events or theological
issues that do give me pause, I try to understand/criticize them with an
attitude of humility because I feel that it is a record (albeit flawed,
imperfect, or even sometimes wrong) of humanity's experience of the Holy; and
even if the record is sometimes wrong, I do believe that the Holy occurs, and
thus, I should be mindful of the Holy even in my disagreement. This brings up
one other brief point:
I have made both an intellectual and emotional/heart-felt decision to be a
person of faith. I have decided that I shall approach the world through the
glasses of Christian belief. Faith is never an involuntary affair, and I
suspect that people critical of faith believe that one will only become
"spiritual" only if a eureka event occurs; if their will is overpowered by
belief. I approach Christianity as both a function of heart as well as of mind.
I shall be fluid in regards to the historical/scientific record because of
primary importance to me is the great proclamation of the faith: Christ has
died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. I'll not let that
proclamational truth (as i believe it) to hinge upon vagaries of theological
nit-picking that makes science (which is really God's creation) an enemy of
belief.
> See also the Septuagint, the third century BCE translation of the Torah into
> Greek. The story is that the seventy-odd translators all came up with the
> same divinely inspired translation, confirming its accuracy. Believe it or
> not, I think the fact that people needed to have confidence in the divinity
> of the words they read is significant.
Absolutely. If one cannot have some strong measure of confidence in a writ to
which they have acknowledged an authoritative claim (to some degree) upon their
conduct and belief, then there is no point going through the motions.
> > I have seldom noted, however, contradictions that gave me theological pause.
> > I do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but I do believe that it is
> > divinely-inspired, and to that end I believe the books to display a very high
> > degree of consistency in terms of theological content; that which the Church
> > (i.e., the universal body of believers) likes to call the Harmony of
> > Scripture.
>
> What room do you leave for theological inconsistencies (eg method of
> salvation, nature of the trinity, sanctity of Mary), and arguably
> non-theological inconsistencies (eg if someone is born homosexual is it
> possible to love the sinner, hate the sin)?
Wow. That's a mother-load of issues. My primary concern as a Christian is
those "essentials of the faith" without which, I'd argue, one ceases to be a
Christian.
1) I weigh all questions of salvation upon the scales of God's unfathomable
mercies; traits which I believe the Bible has accurately described. In the end,
God will open his arms to uncounted billions. If a view of salvation (such as
Calvanism, which I utterly reject) seems to contradict the Love of God ("God is
Love"), then I must call it into question, though it be found in the very pages
of scripture (which Calvanism is *not*.) A quote whose source I forget: "In the
end, all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be
well."
2) The sanctity of Mary? Here i may ruffle some feathers, but I believe that
Mary was a sinner, just as all mortals are. She did not remain a virgin, as
scripture indicates that Jesus had siblings. She was, however, a person of
unquestionable uniqueness in that God chose her as the vessel to carry the
incarnate Savior, and she was arguable the person most loved by Jesus. However,
the status of Mary is not an essential of the faith.
3) In regards to loving the sinner/hating the sin, I offer that many people
believe love to be primarily an involuntary emotional response - a feeling. I
would say, however, that love is primarily an action. One may indeed love a
person yet feel his actions to be dispicable (please do not read any into that
statement any references to homosexuality) and indeed hate what he is done.
Basically, this love is borne of humility. When watching a man walking to the
gallows, it is saying "but by the Grace of God there go I." It is recognizing
that the evil is within all of us, and that i also might commit a despicable
crime if circumstances were just so.
james
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) Most believers of other faiths have a holy language in which the sacred text is written: Hebrew for Jews, Arabic for Muslims, Sanskrit for Hindus. Here I'm particularly interested in how translation affects this communication between the text (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
126 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
